Q^ 'o 



\> „ -^ * 







> „ -< -* . ^ 



^ ^^ 













■-^^0^ .r SIB ^. '^^ c^ ^ ^^«^' ^ "-^ 



^^^ 







%.^" 



1° tf 







^^^:^^^^% ^^^:^^^% ^^^■^^;;^^% 








r % \H 



^^^'i^'Sp c?^oi;i:^>^ oo^o_:^.>^ 



V^ ^ ^ • ^ -^ 



V ^^'°A^ -^ 



V ^ 







cy, ^ 






^C>^ 



--^ v^n 







v"-^ 



"^^^^^^ -*^;.v-, 



.*.«? 






-> 



^Adi 












/ 




^^> 









/? 






DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE : 

EMURACING AN EXAMINATION OF THE 

SCRIPTURE DOCTRINES ON THE SUBJECT, 

A\n AN IXQITIRY INTO THE 

CHARACTER AND RELATIONS OF SLAVERY. 

,,: . A- 

^ j I BY LEICESTER A. SAWYER, A. M. 

6^* ^ 



Prove all things; hi)ld fast that which it; good."— Paul. 



NEW HAVEN: 
PUBLISHED BY DURRIE & PECK 

HITCHCOCK & STAFFOUD, PRINTEUS. 

1837. 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1837, 

^ BY LEICESTER A. SAWYER, 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Connecticut. 



^f 



CONTENTS. 



Introduction, - - - -- - -5 

DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE, - - - - - 9 

SECTION I, 
Patriarchal Servitude, -...-- 9 

SECTION II. 
• The Servitude of the Mosaic Institutes, - - - 19 

SECTION III. 
The New Testament doctrines respecting Servitude, - - 35 

SECTION IV. 
The Slavery of the Greeks and Romans, - - - - 49 

SECTION V. 

The nature of Righteous Servitude, - - - - 57 

SECTION VI. 

The different kinds of Servitude, - .... (.5 

SECTION VII. 
Is Slavery wrong 1- - - - - --75 

SECTION VIII. 
I Ought Slavery to be immediately abolished] - - . . 88 



INTRODUCTION. 



The following Dissertation is devoted to an extensive 
subject, and one of great practical importance. Servi- 
tude occupies a prominent place in the Scriptures, and 
is illustrated by a great variety of Scripture precepts 
and examples. It enters into several of the most im- 
portant institutions of civilized and christian society, 
and opens a field for investigation, pertaining to the 
deepest principles of morality and religion. 

This subject in all its branches is now brought into 
discussion, by the existing excitement in relation to 
slavery. The advocates and apologists for slavery, are 
examining it for the purpose of fortifying their positions 
and maintaining more effectually their tottering cause. 

The opposers of slavery are examining it for the op- 
posite purpose ; namely, that of assailing more effect- 
ually the object of their opposition. This subject, there- 
fore, is one of interest to all classes of persons. 

The order pursued in this Dissertation, has appeared 
to the writer to possess several important advantai^es. It 
follows the divine communications on this sul)ject, be- 
ginning with the earliest, and proceeding regularly to 
the latest. On leaving them, it proceeds naturally from 
the more simple to the more complicated and dilficiilt 
topics of inquiry. Whatever may liave been his suc- 
cess, the writer has sought diligently and honestly for 
the truth, in respect to tiie Scripture exam})les of servi- 
tude, and the doctrines they inculcate on tliis subject. 
Those doctrines and exam})les, as they liave appeared 
to him, are herein impartially set forth, and are com- 



6 INTRODUCTION. 

mended, not to the blind credulity, but to the diligent 
investigation of every reader. 

Truth will bear examination. It is our high privi- 
lege to prove all things by free and liberal inquiry ; and 
we must do it in order to attain and hold fast that, and 
that only, which is truly good. 

The present inquiry has led the writer to several con- 
clusions which he did not anticipate at the commence- 
ment of it. Many of them have been hio^hly gratifying 
to his feelings, and in his opinion, favorable to the honor 
of religion. As far as those conclusions are according to 
truth, and no farther, he would be glad to conduct oth- 
ers to the same. 

The truth is not bound. It is not altogether con- 
cealed, nor yet does it all appear to the superficial and 
hasty inquirer. It must be sought for with diligence 
and patience, and with continued attention and repeated 
eifort, in order to its being fully explored even in its 
most simple developments. Moral truth must also be 
sought with a humble, submissive, teachable, and chris- 
tian spirit, in order to its being fully understood and 
appreciated. Labor and argument are often expended 
in vain upon the unhumbled and unteachable, already 
wiser in their own eyes, and in entire ignorance, than 
seven men who can demonstrate the truth of their opin- 
ions. Prov. xxvi. 16. 

A christian spirit is peculiarly necessary in the inves- 
tigation of the nature and relations of slavery. Here it 
becomes us all to feel that we are but men, and that 
truth is of God. Here our inquiries ought to be prose- 
cuted with special deliberation and care, remembering 
that we are responsible to God for our opinions and 
words, as well as for our actions. Errors of opinion 
lead to those of affection and action. We must think 
right on all practical subjects, in order to feel and act 
right. 

The subject of slavery is one of practical interest to 
every citizen of the United States. We all have some- 
thing to do with it as citizens, to approve or disapprove, 



INTRODTICTION. 7 

to eiicourao^e or discouras^e, to build up or pull down. 
We have done too much in ignorance ; it becomes us 
now to act with intelligence and discretion. Not to 
feel a desire to understand this subject, indicates an un- 
usual and criminal apathy in respect to the interests of 
humanity and religion ; and also in respect to the influ- 
ence which we are bound as individuals to exert. 

Slavery is not only supported by the slave-holding 
states and districts in which it exists, but by every por- 
tion of the United States. Every part of the Union is 
implicated in its support, by the action of their repre- 
sentatives in congress. The national legislature has 
assumed the responsibility of continuing it in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, the heart of the nation, and the very 
Citadel of freedom, and in other districts under its entire 
control, at the South and West. It has permitted this 
acknowledged evil to increase and extend itself from 
year to year, till its present alarming magnitude has 
been attained. In this procedure of the national govern- 
ment, the North and non slave-holding states have gen- 
erally co-operated. The voice of remonstrance from 
this quarter has been occasionally heard ; but it has been 
only occasional, feeble, and consequently ineftectual. 
This co-operation of the North in the support and ex- 
tension of slavery, is the more surprising on account of 
the general condemnation and abhorrence of this insti- 
tution by the mass of northern men. It is acknowledged 
to be wrong. It is deplored as a great political evil, 
and a source of imminent peril to our liberties as a na- 
tion. Over the South it is seen to hancr like a dark 
portentous cloud of the wrath of the vVlmighty, wiio de- 
clares both by his word and providence, that though 
hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunislied ; 
(Prov. xi. 21 ;) and that evil shall pursue them. A 
sentiment has generally prevailed, that something effec- 
tual ought to be done to check this extending and in- 
creasing evil ; but till this time it has gone on uncheck- 
ed, and is now in the full tide of advancement. 

In the opinion of the wisest and most discerning 



INTRODUCTION. 



minds, this matter must ultimately come to a crisis. If 
it is not prosecuted and overtaken with remedial mea- 
sures by us, it will ultimately become too great and 
dreadful to be sustained, and will recoil upon its sup- 
porters with tremendous and wide-spread ruin. We 
ought not to close our eyes against approaching danger ; 
but to forsee the evil which is advancing upon us, and 
if possible, avoid it. 

On the church of Christ the subject of this Disserta- 
tion possesses undoubted and peculiar claims. That 
association was formed for the purpose of promoting the 
exercise of justice and mercy. We are bound to exercise 
mercy towards men, as the necessary condition of our 
receiving it from God. James ii. 13. We are bound 
as christians to sympathize with the afflicted and op- 
pressed everywhere, but especially within the sphere of 
our immediate influence. 

If slave-holding is wrong, the church ought not in 
any way to countenance or encourage it. Here the 
light of truth ought to shine with unclouded radiance ; 
and from this sacred enclosure, the law of love ought 
to proceed. " Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are 
true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things 
are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things 
are lovely, and of good report ; if there be any virtue and 
any praise, think of these things ;" pursue them steadily 
and earnestly ; " and the God of peace shall be with 
you." 

Come thou blessed Jesus in the glory of thy truth and 
love, and send forth judgment to victory ; (Matt. xii. 20 ;) 
and let every one that readeth say come. 



DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 



SECTION I. 

PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 



The state of society in the early periods of our race, is in- 
volved in considerable obscurity. The Bible is the only source 
of authentic information on this subject, and the information 
which it contains is necessarily limited. It teaches us, however, 
that marriage existed from the commencement of human society, 
and that the relations of husband and wife, and of parent and 
child, were recognized in the family of Adam, and continued, 
and respected in every succeeding age. 

At the commencement of human society, all government was 
naturally and almost necessarily patriarchal. Adam probably 
long continued to be the patriarchal head of his increasing pos- 
terity, and to exercise over them some degree of patriarchal au- 
thority. Each succeeding family was, however, a little kingdom 
of itself, having acknowledged rights and privileges of its own, 
and looking to its immediate head as the fountain of authority in 
respect to all ordinary affairs. How far family government was 
modified by patriarchal authority, or within what limits patriarchal 
authority was restrained, it is impossible to determine with j)re- 
cision. 

Abraham was not subject to any patriarchal authority exerci- 
sed by his ancestors, after his departure from Harari, when he 
was seventy-five years old. Gen. xii. 5. Previous to that time, 
he seems to have been in some degree under the authority of 
Terah liis father, as did also Lot his nephew, (icn. xi. 31. 

In Egypt, Abraham submitted to the monarchical government 
2 



10 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

then existing in that country, and was for a time protected by it. 
At this time he possessed " sheep, and oxen, and asses, and men- 
servants, and maid-servants, and camels." It appears also, that 
Lot had not yet separated from him. Gen. xii. 14 — 20. 

Men-servants and maid-servants are here enumerated among 
Abraham's possessions. What authority he exercised over 
them, or by what right he held them in a state of servitude, we 
are not informed. It is evident, however, that Abraham's author- 
ity over his servants was not derived from the civil government 
of the countries in which he lived ; but that it was entirely inde- 
pendent of those governments. It made no difference as to 
that, whether he was in Egypt or Canaan ; within the domains 
of an absolute monarchy, or where no civil government of any 
kind extended its authority over him. 

In Gen. xvi. we find an account of Hagar, an Egyptian fe- 
male servant belonging to Sarah, Abraham's wife. After a res- 
idence of ten jears in the land of Canaan, Sarah seeing that 
she had no children, requested Abraham to take Hagar her maid- 
servant as his concubine, or wife of the second class. Abra- 
ham complied with her request, and thus brought upon himself 
the stain and guilt of polygamy, and planted the seeds of severe 
domestic afflictions in his family. It is to be presumed that this 
female servant did not become the wife of Abraham without her 
consent, or contrary to her own will. 

The word JTT'lsJi mistress, which expresses the relation of 
Sarah to Hagar, Gen. xvi. 8, 9, is applied in other parts of the 
Bible to denote a person of high rank, generally a queen. " And 
Hadad found great favor in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he 
gave him as a wife, the sister of his own wife, the sister of 
Tahpenes Ji-i"^!!:;'" the queen." 1 Kings xi. 19: xv. 13; 2 
Kings X. 13; 2"fchron. xv. 16. 

The severity which Hagar experienced from Sarah, was prob- 
ably as inexcusable as tb.e sin of polygamy, into which Abraham 
had been led by the advice of his first and principal wife. 

We are told that Abraham made provision for the sons of his 
concubines, and that he sent them eastward into the East country, 
while he yet lived. Gen. xxv. 6. 

The word concubines is the translation of D"'^":ib'>S and de- 
notes wives of an inferior class, such as Hagar. In Gen. xxv. 
10, 13, Hagar is called |-i7:M incorrectly translated bond-woman. 
Hannah applies this word to herself, 1 Sam. i. 11,16; Abigail, 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 1 I 

the wife of Nabal, does the same, 1 Sam. xxv. 24, 27, 28, 31, 
41 ; and the wise woman of Tckoa, 2 Sam. xiv. 15. It undoubt- 
edly denotes a state of subjection, in opposition to one of autlior- 
ity ; and an inferior, considered in ix-spcct to rank. But it does 
not denote a slave, or a person held as property. Ha^^ar was 
not so held by Abraham ; certainly not after lie had taken her 
to be his wife. An important dilference of meaning between 
this word and the ordinary name of a female servant, is clearly 
indicated in 1 Sam. xxv. 41, where Abigail requests David to 
take herself for a servant. 

In Gen. xx. 14, Abimeleck, king of Gerar, to compensate 
Abraham for an injury he had ignorantly done him, " took sheep 
and oxen and men-servants and women-servants, and gave them 
to him." These were probably given as subjects are transfer- 
red from one civil government to another. 

In Gen. xxx. 43, Jacob is said to have had " many sheep, and 
maid-servants, and men-servants, and camels, and asses." 
These passages bear a striking resemblance to Gen. xii. It), 
where we have a similar inventory of the possessions of Abraham. 

The most common names of patriarchal servants, were D"'^^:? 
men-servants, and nhsilJ female-servants. They are several 
times, however, mentioned in the patriarchal history by dilTerent 
appellations. 

In Gen. xiv. 14, Abraham's servants are called iri"»n "^T'b"' 
children of bis family ; probably the same as family or house- 
hold servants — servants belonging to his family. Of these he 
led out in person three hundred and eighteen, who were trained 
for military service, on a sudden expedition against the con- 
querors of Sodom and the adjacent country, by wiiom nis nephew 
Lot had been taken captive. With this force and his confederates 
he marclied from Hebron to Dan. Here he attacked them by 
night, retook their spoil and captives, and pursued them with 
great slaughter to Hobah, west of Damascus. 

These were probably comprehended among those referred to 
as belonging to Abraham, Gen. xii. 10, under the appellation 
of men-servants. They may however have denoted a cUlss <»f 
servants, attached in a peculiar manner to their master and civil 
governor, and liable to be called upon on any sudden emer- 
gency in preference to others, and may have been entitled to pe- 
culiar privileges. 

In Gen. xvii. 12, 13, 23, n^n n^b"^ child ol" the family, occurs 



12 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

as the appellation of a class of servants who were so far under 
the authority of Abraham, as to be required by him to receive 
circumcision ; and of course they must have been equally under 
his control, in respect to other manifest duties. 

They are in this chapter distinguished from others in a state 
of equal subjection so far as religious duties were concerned, 
termed p]D3-n2[P/j the purchase of silver, or of money. This 
latter name, derived from the mode of their acquisition, by pur- 
chase, denotes a distinct class of servants, without defining the 
nature of their servitude. It seems that all the servants of 
Abraham belonged to one or other of these classes. Properly 
translated, the passages referred to read thus : 

" 12. He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, 
every man-child in your generations ; the household servant or 
child of the family, and the purchase of money, him that is 
bought with money. 13. The household servant and he that is 
bought with thy money, must be circumcised. 23. And Abra- 
ham took Ishmael bis son, and ail his household servants, and 
all his bought servants, every male among the men of the house 
or family of Abraham, and circumcised them in the same day, 
as God had commanded him." 

The household or family of Abraham comprehended these 
two classes of servants. It must of course have been very 
large, for we have three hundred and eighteen of one only of 
these classes mentioned on a former occasion, and those such 
as had been qualified by appropriate instruction and exercise for 
military service, and such as could be called into the field upon 
the shortest notice. 

In Gen. xv. 2, 3, Abraham not yet having had any children, 
complains of his having no child to inherit his property and au- 
thority, and that Eliezur of Damascus, a household servant, was 
likely to be his heir. It appears from this remarkable passage, 
that in respect to the inheritance of property and authority, the 
household servants took precedence of all other relatives, except 
lineal descendants ; for Abraham had a nephew near, namely, 
Lot, and had other relatives in Haran ; yet Eliezur his servant 
was at this time liis presumptive heir, to the exclusion of all his 
relatives. 

In Gen. xxiv. 2, mention is made of a patriarchal servant, the 
elder or ruler of Abraham's house or family, who is described as 
exercising under Abraham the highest authority, and havins all 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 13 

the affairs of this extensive patriarchate or family, under hisim. 
mediate supervision and control. 

The word translated eldest, in our common version of verse 2, 
is generally translated elder, and ought to be so rendered here. 
It is the common Hebrew name for a ruler of any kind, whether 
civil or religious, or both. 

This ruler calls himself Abraham's servant, verse 34, and 
calls Abraham his master, and describes him tts having been 
greatly blessed, and as being a man of great distinction. Vei>;e 
35. He describes the possessions of Abraham as consisting 
chiefly in flocks, and herds, and silver, and ,«;old, and men-ser- 
vants, and female servants, and camels, and asses. All these 
possessions are said to have been given or translerred to Isaac, 
as his successor and heir. Verse 30. 

Abraham seems to have exercised the authority of a prince 
or chief. He was the sole head and ruler of the little dyucusiy 
which was composed of his servants and children, and which is 
repeatedly referred to by Moses, as his n'^i patriarchate or fam- 
ily. The person who ruled under him, over all that he had, v>q.s 
only ']'r\^2 "ipT the elder or ruler of his family. 

Abraham's family or household, which he commanded to keep 
the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment, (Gen. xviii. 11),) 
comprehended all his servants, both the servants of the family, 
properly so called, and those bought with money. Gen. xvii. 
12, 13, 23. 

The covenant of grace formed with Abraham, as the visible 
head of the church, extended its kind provisions to his servants 
as well as to his children, inasmuch as they, equally with his 
children, were required to receive the mark of circumcision, the 
external seal of that covenant. Gen. xvii. 12, 13, 14. 

The extent of his authority over his servants, so far as it is 
indicated in the inspired record of Moses, does not appear to be 
greater than it was over his children. He was the civil and re- 
ligious sovereign of both. This sovereignty was probably vested 
in him partly by inheritance, partly by the usages of the times 
and countries in which he lived, and still more by the consent of 
his subjects. 

Men who live in society must be the subjects of some govern- 
ment ; they must bow to some authority which they become oh. 
ligated to uphold, and which becomes obligati'tl in its turn, to af- 
ford them protection. The government of Abraham was upheld 
by the combined support of his servants. 

2* 



14 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

So far as appears from the inspired account of this dynasty, 
that support must have been voluntary, or chiefly so. There 
was no higher power by which a reluctant submission could 
have been enforced. There was no middle class to stand be- 
tween Abraham and his servants, who in consequence of pecu- 
liar privileges, might have had an interest to assist him in oppres- 
sing them. He stood nearly if not quite alone, with nothing to 
bind his servants to him, but the benefits they could derive from 
his government, patronage, and protection. Those benefits, we 
liave reason to believe, were not few nor small ; for his was a 
government in which the doing of judgment and justice was 
strictly enforced. Gen. xviii. 19. 

A kindred species of government and of servitude still contin- 
ues in the East, though with far less of judgment and justice, and 
with far more of the exercise of arbitrary power, than can rea- 
sonably be attributed to Abraham and his successors in office. 

When Jacob left his father's residence, in order to escape the 
displeasure of Esau, whom he had both injured and offended, he 
visited Laban, his mother's brother, and abode with him for tlie 
space of a month. Gen. xxix. 14. Laban then " said anto him, 
because thou art my brother, shouldst thou therefore serve me 
for nothing? Tell me what shall be thy wages." Gen. xxix. 
15. This passage teaches, that Jacob resided with Laban in the 
capacity of a servant, and that as such he was entitled to wages. 

In verse 20, we are informed that Jacob served seven years 
for Rachel. At the expiration of that term, he received Leah, 
an older sister, in place of Rachel, contrary to the terms of the 
agreement. He then had the offer of Rachel on condition that 
lie should continue to serve Laban seven years more, verse 27, 
which he accepted. Jacob's wives received the gift of a maid- 
servant for each, from their father. 

Each of these maid-servants became at a later period the in* 
ferior wives of Jacob, at the request of their mistresses respect- 
ively. Gen. xxx. 4, 9 ; xxxv. 22. 

The servitude of Jacob for his wives, consisted of two periods 
of seven years. It may be denominated septennial servitude, in 
distinction from that which is perpetual. It corresponds in re- 
spect to duration, to our present system of apprenticeship to 
trades, which is generally for a term of years, and in many ca- 
ses that of seven. An apprentice is a servant, and continues 
such during the period of his apprenticeship. For aught that 
appears in the inspired nai'rative, the condition of Jacob during 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 1") 

the period of his servitude for liis wives, was substantiallv the 
same as that of others who were servants for ViU;, or durin«^ the 
pleasure of their masters. He may liave lx>en as mucli in the 
power of his master for the time beinjx, as they were lor life. 

The word haiid-maid, which so often occurs in the Old Tes- 
tament, is the same as maid-servant, being a less eligible trans, 
lation of the same word. 

Isaac says to Esau, respecting the blessing which he had pro- 
nounced upon Jacob : " Behold, I have made him thy lord, and 
all his brethren have I given him for servants." Gen. xxvii. 37. 

The nature of the patriarchal government administered by 
Isaac, is here clearly indicated. Esau was Isaac's apparent 
heir by right of primogeniture. As such, he had evidently ex- 
pected to be invested with the government of the patriarchate, 
on the decease or retirement of his father. 

In the solemn patriarchal benediction, however, Jacob had 
been distinctly designated as the immediate ruler of the patriarch- 
ate, in preference to Esau, and his family as the ruling branch of 
the family of Isaac. In pronouncing this blessing upon Jacob, 
his father had acted under a false impression that he was blessing 
his first-born. But he was conscious of having acted under the 
impulse of the Holy Spirit, and he had no authority to recall 
what he had said. 

In giving Jacob his brethren for servants, Isaac obviously in- 
tended to invest him with the exclusive government of the patri- 
archate. He did not divide that government among his sons, 
but he purposed to give it to the oldest, agreeably to the usages 
of those times. The brethren of the proposed sovereign in the 
])atriarchal dynasty, were given to him not as slaves, but as sub- 
jects. Jacob was designated as the lawful successor of Isaac, 
and was to succeed to the exercise of his authority over his own 
brethren, as well as over the other subjects of his father. 

This election of Jacob to succeed his father in the patriarchal 
government, does not appear to have resulted in his immediate 
elevation to that oflice. 

He was soon obliged to leave tlie principality to the govern- 
ment of which he had been ai)pointed, in order to escape the 
murderous displeasure of Esau ; and in his absence the reins of 
the patriarchal government seem to have fallen into Esau's 
hands. 

Jacob, however, in pursuance of the high destination which 
the prophetic blessing of his father had assigned him, laid liic 



16 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE 

foundation of a new patriarchate, separate from that which fell 
into the hands of his less pious brother, and became the real 
successor of Isaac and Abraham, by succeeding to the exercise 
and maintenance of the patriarchal religion, and to the effectual 
establishment of the same among his descendants. 

He realized the fulfilment of his father's prophetic blessing, by 
the standing which he ultimately attained through many trials 
and difficulties, as a prince having power with God, and swaying 
by his influence the destinies of men. He and his descendants 
are first ; Esau and his descendants, second. Jacob and his de- 
scendants became the light of the world, the salt of the earth, in 
whom all nations are blessed ; whereas the patriarchate of Esau 
was far inferior, in political consequence, to that of his brother. 

The facts referred to in the foregoing pages, few as they are, 
comprehend every thing of importance in the patriarchal history, 
relating to the system of servitude which they administered ; a 
system which is erroneously regarded by many as similar to 
modern slavery. 

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are described as successive chiefs 
or patriarchal rulers of a dynasty, founded by the first of these 
distinguished men. 

They Avere all men of uncommon excellence, and are justly 
enrolled among the benefactors of their race. They commen- 
ced a train of exertion to promote and perpetuate true religion 
among men, w^iich is yet, after the lapse of so many centuries, 
but partially developed ; and which is destined to fill the world 
with righteousness, and heaven with redeemed and rejoicing 
worshipers of God. 

These lights of the world were, however, but men, compassed 
with the usual infirmities of our fallen nature, subject to tempta- 
tion, to errors of judgment, to perversions of moral feeling, to 
sin. As such they are described by Moses. A poet or novel- 
ist would have described them as angels. But the pen of inspi- 
ration, faithful to truth, has drawn their picture, diversified with 
all the varieties of light and shade which belong to man, both as 
human and depraved. In their faith and devotion to the service 
of God and to the promotion of piety, they were examples for 
our imitation. In the blessings which they received as the con- 
sequence of their piety, they were examples for our encourage- 
ment. But in their errors and sins, they were examples for our 
warning, and were designed to illustrate the weakness and im- 
perfection of human virtue, even in the best men. 



TATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 17 

We have no evidence that the patriarchs held their sen'ants in 
a state of slavery. There are no traces in the patriarchal Ijisto- 
ry, of" laws which resemble the modern systems of legislation de- 
signed to support the institution of slavery. Abraham doi^s not 
appear to have been a slave-holder, but a patriarchal ruler or 
chief, such as the state of society in that period and country 
required. His example, therefore, and that of the other patri- 
archs, cannot be safely relied on as affording any scriptural war- 
rant for slavery, particularly that of the United States. 

The fact, that some of Abraham's servants were accjuired by 
purchase, docs not prove that they were acquired without their 
consent, or that they were held as property, or that they were 
required to surrender to their masters tlieir rights of free-tigency, 
and to submit to an irresponsible sovereignty, established and 
administered for the exclusive benefit of the master. 

Abraham's servants were accounted members of his family, 
equally with his children, and entitled to high privileges as sucti. 
It does not appear that they were deprived of the rights of mar- 
riage, of holding and transferring property, or of acquiring 
knowledge and improving their minds to any extent possible. 
But the contrary is clearly established. 

Even if Abraham and the other patriarchs were convicted of 
holding their servants in a relation in any respects similar to that 
of slaves, it would not prove slave-holding to be right. 

Abraham and Jacob lived in the practice of polygamy, hi vio- 
lation of the Divine institution of marriage, handed down from 
the beginning of the world. God's institution of marriage con- 
templated the union of two persons, one man and one woman, in 
the matrimonial relation, and no more. Under that institution, 
no man had a right to more than one wife, luid no woman to 
more than one husband. Polygamy never has been conforma- 
ble to the Divine law. It was not right in the days of the patri- 
archs, and it is not now. God's displeasure against the patri- 
archs for this sin, wa.s unequiv(jcally expressed by the domestic 
trials which were brought upon them by this means. The most 
severe atllictions of Abraham arose from his polygamy. Tiio 
same was true of Jacob. Tiie lives of both those patriarciis 
were greatly embittered by the evils which came upon them us 
the consequence of their sins in this respect. Their families 
were divided against themselves, and greatly distressed on this 
account. The sale of Joseph into Egypt, and all the trouble 



18 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

which it occasioned, arose from the fact of his heing the son of 
a favorite wife, and not of the only one. 

The sin of polygamy, though doubtless a sin, in the days of 
the patriarchs and in the state of society then existing in Pales- 
tine, is still more criminal now, in this and other christian coun- 
tries. 

The same is true of oppression, by holding persons in un- 
righteous servitude. There are various modifications of servi- 
tude which are right. That of a subject to a lawful sovereign ; 
of a child to a parent ; of an apprentice to the master to whom 
he is apprenticed ; and of other servants who are hired for law- 
ful purposes, and who are duly recompensed for their services, 
are all right and necessary. These servitudes were always 
right. 

If the servitude of the patriarchs was oppressive in any way, 
it was so far wrong, and as truly so as polygamy was. So far 
as any modern systems of servitude upheld in christian and civ- 
ilized countries are oppressive, they are still more criminal than 
the same would have been in the less enlightened and less impro- 
ved times of the patriarchs. 

It is not the design of God, that we should imitate the examples of 
ancient saints, without careful discrimination. They were but 
men, compassed with the infirmities of our fallen and corrupted 
nature, and but partially delivered from the bondage of moral 
corruption. As such they are described by the inspired writers. 
The most important facts of their lives are set before us with a 
sparing distribution either of commendation or blame. The in- 
spired writers seldom interrupt their narratives to commend the 
virtues, or censure the vices which they describe, but leave both 
to awaken their appropriate feelings, and make their due impres- 
sion on the minds of their readers. 

In these records are developed the true and universal princi- 
ples of human nature, both in its renovated and unregenerate 
state. In showing us wherein the best and wisest of men have 
erred, they administer salutary admonition to ourselves, and 
point out the particulars in respect to which we have need to be 
especially on our guard. 

The virtues of the patriarchs we ought to imitate ; their sins 
we ought to avoid. The record of their sins was not intended 
to embolden us in sin, but to deter us from it, and to encourage, 
if penitent, in seeking for pardon. 

They lived in a dark age, from the influences of which they 



THE SERVITUDE OF THE MOSAIC INSTITUTES. 19 

did not entirely escape. The system of servitude which they 
adopted, corresponded in some degree to the institutions general- 
ly prevalent in that age and country. It is not necessary to sup. 
pose that they were entirely justifiable in respect to their civil in- 
stitutions and authority, in order to vindicate the honor of Cnxl 
in bestowing upon them marks of his special favor. And if 
they were to some extent guiUy, their guilt may have been lar 
less than would be contracted by the exercise of similar author- 
ity in christian lands, at the present time. 

Those who in this country endeavor to justify themselves in 
oppressing their fellow-men by the example of the patriarchs, 
will find ere long, and pei-haps to their everlasting sorrow, what 
they oughi to have learned long since, that Scriptural examples 
are no justification of injustice ; and that they have either mista- 
ken the facts in respect to patriarchal servitude, or else are ma- 
king a use of them, the very opposite of that which those exam- 
ples were designed and are adapted to answer. 

Those who claim the patriarciis as slave-holders, and charge 
them with having sustained this relation to the subjects of their 
patriarchal authority, are guilty of highly slanderous representa- 
tions of the characters of those holy men, and of their religion. 

Their representations are slanderous, because they invo've 
the charge of a gross violation of the pi-inciples of justice and 
mercy, and are not sustained but contradicted by the evidence 
relating to the case. 

To represent them as lawful sovereigns exercising a mild, reli- 
gious, and civil authority over their subjects, permitting such as 
choose to leave their dominions for those of any other j^rince or 
chief, is evidently most accordant to the facts relating to this sub- 
ject, as they appear from the Scripture narrative. 



SECTION II. 

THE SERVITUDE OF THE MOSAIC INSTITUTES. 

The servitude of the patriarchs previous to the time of Moses, 
is involved in some obscurity, lor want of a particular account 
of the laws and usages by wliich it was regulated. All tlial we 



20 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

know of it is derived from incidental allusions to this subject, 
and illustrations of it contained in the book of Genesis, and from 
reasonings based on contemporary institutions and usages, and 
those of later times. 

The system of servitude as it existed among the Israelites in 
later times, is more fully explained. The account of the Israel- 
itish polity as established by ]\Ioses, embraced several important 
enactments or ordinances relating to this institution, which enable 
us to determine its character with considerable precision. No 
part of the Israelitish polity opens a more curious and interest- 
ing field of inquiry, than this. It is deeply interesting as a mere 
matter of history ; still more so as one of sacred history, and es- 
pecially so at the present time. 

But notwithstanding the interest it is adapted to excite, there is 
reason to believe that it is very imperfectly understood by the 
great mass of the most enlightened christian communities. It 
cannot be well understood without considerable attention and 
effort. Many among us seem to have mistaken its true charac- 
ter entirely, and have expended powerful and learned effort in 
giving plausibility and currency to their mistakes. 

The laws of Moses on the subject of servitude are recorded 
in the following passages, and principally in the order hei-e ob- 
served. Several of them were communicated verbally by God, 
on the occasion of his uttering the ten commandments, when 
he descended in fire on Mount Sinai. All were dictated by his 
wisdom. 

1. Ex. XX. 10: "But the seventh day is the Sabbath of 
the Lord thy God ; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou nor thy 
son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, 
nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates." The 
same is repeated in Deut. v. 14. 

This passage recognizes the existence of servants of both 
sexes, and makes it the duty of the master to afford them the 
opportunity of observing the Sabbath. In respect to the ob- 
servance of the Sabbath, the servant is put on an equality with 
the son and daughter. It appears also from the mode of expres- 
sion here adopted, that the master was not only required to allow 
his servant to enjoy the rest of the Sabbath, but that he was in. 
vested with authority to command it, and required to exercise 
that authority when necessary for this purpose. 

In Deut. V. 14, there is added to the commandment, as stated 
in Ex. XX. 10, "that thy man-servant and maid-servant may 



THE SERVITUDE OF THE MOSAIC IN'STITTTES. 'Jl 

rest as well as thou ;" sliowing that particular stress is laid on 
the part of the conimandmeut which relates to the rest of ser- 
vants. 

Servants were entitled to the same privileges as children and 
others, in respect to the great annual festivals of the Israelites. 
Deut. xvi. 9 — 17 : " Three times a year shall all thy males ap- 
pear before the Lord thy God, m the place which he shall 
choose." 

These laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath and the 
annual religious festivals by servants, prove that this class of 
persons were considered, in the eye of the law, its having the 
rights of men, and that they were not reduced to the low le\ el of 
things. They develop a principle of law which needs only to 
be carried out into its various legitimate applications, to secure 
every right and subserve every interest wliich we possess as 
moral beings. 

Ex. XX. 17: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, 
thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wit'e, nor his nian-servant, 
nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that 
is thy neighbor's." Consider in connexion with this, Ex. xx. 15, 
"Thou shalt not steal." 

The words man-servant and maid-servant, as they are used in 
the ten commandments, must be interpreted in their most com- 
prehensive sense. They do not denote a particular class of ser- 
vants, but those of any ckiss whatever. The command, thoa 
shalt not covet thy neighbor's servant, docs not prove that ser- 
vants were held as property, any more than tiie similar injunc- 
tion in respect to the neighbor's wife, proves that wives were 
held as property. Men may be possessed as servants, without 
being possessed as property. Children and wives are the objects 
of possession, as children and wives, but not as chattels personal. 
They may be claimed by the titles of wife and cliild, but not by 
that of a chattel personal. 

The passages above quoted, comprehending the tenth and 
eighth commandments in the moral and municipal law of the 
Israelites, establish a j)rinciple which is inconsistent with holding 
men as property. 

The law respecting covetousness, says, " Thou shalt not covet 
any thing that is thy neighbor's ;" that is, any thing that justly 
belongs to thy neighbor. It comprehends every thing tiiul a 
man, considered with respect to his fellow men, may call his 
own, whether held as property or iii any other relation of possecj- 

3 



22 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

sion. It of course comprehends a man's faculties and rights as 
a rational and moral being, and his labor. These the Israelites 
were not allowed to covet nor to invade. The limitation of 
these moral precepts so as to make them signify merely, Thou 
shalt not covet nor steal what is thy neighbor's, by virtue of hu- 
man laws and the usages of the society in which you happen to 
live, however unrighteous those laws and usages may be, is a 
gross perversion of their true sense. 

2. Ex. xxi. 1 — 11 : "Now these are the judgments which 
thou shalt set before them ; if thou buy or procure a Hebrew 
servant, six years he shall serve, and in the seventh he shall go 
out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out 
by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with 
him. 

" If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him 
sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, 
and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall say, 
I love my master, my wife, and my children ; I will not go free ; 
then his master shall bring him to God, (incorrectly translated 
judges,) and he shall bring him to the door or to the door post, 
and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he 
shall be his servant forever. 

" And if a man sell his daughter for an Jil^i^ a maid-servant, 
(of a higher and peculiar class, not an ordinary female servant,) 
she shall not go out .as the men-servants do. If she is disliked 
by her master, so that he will not take her for a wife, he shall 
release her, or allow her to be redeemed. He shall not have 
power to sell her to another family after his having rejected or 
defrauded her. If he betroth her to his son, he shall deal with 
her after the manner of daughters. If he take to him another, 
(that is, another wife or concubine,) her food, her clothing, and 
her marriage duty, he shall not diminish. If he afford her not 
these three, then shall she go out free, without money." 

From this passage it appears that Israelites might be sold into 
sexennial, but not perpetual servitude. No Hebrew could be 
bound to another in the capacity of a servant, for more than 
six years, with the exception of the female servants sold for 
concubines or wives. 

No person belonging to the Theocracy was allowed to contract 
with another member of the same for his service in the capacity 
of a servant, for a longer period than six years ; and as none 
could acquire authority over a Hebrew as a servant, for more 



THE SERVITUDE OF THE MOSAIC INSTITUTES. 23 

than six years, so none could transfer such authority for a longer 
period. This law for the regulation of servitude, is one of the 
most striking and singular of the Mosaic institutes. It was an 
abridgment of civil liberty in favor of liberty, and to prevent 
injustice and oppression, and was worthy of a Divine Lawgiver. 

It appears from Deut. xv. 18, that those called hired-servants, 
contracted only for three years at a time. A sexennial servant 
was worth a double hired-servant. The same is indic;ited by 
Isa. xvi. 14 : " Within three years as the years of a hireling," &c. 

If a master gave to his man-servant, a female-servant as a 
wife, he still retained authority over her as his servant, till her 
time of service expired. Her chikh-en were also his. E\. xxi. 
4, compared with Deut. xv. 12 ; Jer. xxxiv. 9, 10, 11, 16. 

Servitude was to some extent hereditary among the Israelites, 
though not perpetual. Those born of servant-women, in certain 
circumstances, were the heirs of a servitude similar to that of 
their parents ; but only for a limited period; like children wlio 
are born to a state of temporary servitude to their parents, as 
children. 

Besides the sexennial servitude above described, there was 
an institution of perpetual servitude, which was not hereditary. 
After having served a master six years, and having found his 
service agreeable, the servant might by a solemn public declara- 
tion of a desire to be bound for life to that master, expressed in a 
prescribed form, become his perpetual servant. Ex. xxi. 5, G. 

The mode of setting persons apart to perpetual servitude, cor- 
responded to the meanness of that relation, and was at the same 
time adapted effectually to prevent this servitude from being as- 
sumed unwillingly, and to discourage the assumption of it at all. 
It was done before God or before the ecclesiastical and civil an- 
thority, which officiated in God's name, and was j)recedetl by ;ui 
avowal of the servant's desire to have an ignominious rite per- 
formed for the purpose in question ; and finally, this rite was per- 
formed by the master whose service was thus publicly chosen in 
preference to liberty, and who by his participation in the cere- 
mony, signified his acceptance of the person thus voluntarily sur. 
rendered to him, in the capacity of a perpetual servant. 

Daughters might be sold by their parents, as maid-servants of 
a higher class, or wives of an inferior order, whose condition, 
like that of lawful wives, was perj)etual. If however the maid- 
servant of this class became an object of dislike* to her nuuster, 
so that he should refuse to take her for a wife, or to betroth licr 



24 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

to his son, she was entitled to her Hbcrty. Her master had no 
right to dispose of her to strangers, or out of his family. If a 
master betrothed a maid -servant of this description to his son, he 
was required to treat her as a daughter. A man might have 
several wives of this class, but he was required to afford them 
the maintenance, and allow them the privileges of wives ; and 
in case of his failing in any important respect to discharge the 
duties he owed them, they were entitled to their hberty. Ex. 
xxi. 7—11. 

Ex. xxi. 1 — 11, contains a summary of the laws of Moses, 
on the subject of servitude generally, and of that particular nfiod- 
ification of it, which prevailed in respect to females, who were 
termed in this statute ni^l?2i< maid-servants, but who are in other 
parts of the scriptures denominated concubines. See Gen. xxii. 
24 ; XXXV. 22 ; Jud. xix. 1, 9, &c. ; 2 Sam. xv. 16 ; xx. 3 ; 
1 Kings xi. 3 ; 2 Chron. xi. 21. 

The identity of the maid-servants here described, and the con- 
cubines of David, Solomon, Rehoboam, &c., does not admit of 
a reasonable doubt. The concubinage of the earlier patriarchs 
was probably of a similar character. It was a system of matri- 
monial servitude, and analogous to the matrimonial state as in- 
stituted by God. 

Ex. xxi. 7 — 11, affords an explanation of the otherwise inex- 
plicable conduct of David, Solomon, and others, in having concu- 
bines. The concubinage which they supported, was a species of 
servitude permitted by their laws. It had existed and been 
handed down from the earliest times. To them it was lawful, 
considered in reference to a universally acknowledged rule of 
conduct. This law however did not enjoin concubinage. It 
only permitted it, and that under restrictions which were found- 
ed in benevolence and justice. 

The laws of Moses gave no other countenance to this system 
of servitude, than simply not to prohibit it, and to lay such re- 
strictions on it as were calculated to protect the concubine from 
intolerable oppression. They did not therefore declare or make 
it right. Concubinage prevailed under these laws as it had done 
before they were enacted, to the reproach even of good men, 
who upheld it by their examples. The law which did not for- 
bid this iniquity, was doubtless in many cases incorrectly under- 
stood to sanction it, as it has been in later times. 

It is not to be presumed that no instruction was given on this 
subject, but what is recorded in the Scripture narrative. The 



THE SERVITUDE OF THE MOSAIC INSTITUTES. 25 

requirements of God in relation to marriage, were doubtless un. 
derstood and more or less explained, long before tiie institution of 
concubinage was rclinquisbed. The gradual inci-ea.se and dif- 
fusion of ligiit on this subject, from experience and reason, and 
from the more perfect understanding of the will of God, ;is 
made known in the Scri|)turcs and by j)rophets, at length .sub- 
verted entirely the institution of concubinage among the woi-shi[). 
ers of God, by its coming to be considered both injurious and 
irreligious — contrary to reason and revelation. 

It does not appear that these laws respecting sexennial servi- 
tude, applied to the case of heathen servants who continued in a 
heathen state. Such, for aught that appears, might be held in a 
state of servitude for a longer period than Israelites. 

3. Ex. xxi. 20, 21 : "And if a man smite his man-servant, 
or his maid-servant, with a rod, so as to produce immediate death, 
he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if the servant 
continue for a day or two, the master tshall not be punished, for 
he is his money." 

This law makes no difference between the crime of killing af 
servant and any other person, provided death is immediate. 
When the injured person survives a day or two, the law [)re- 
sumes the injury accidental, on the ground that the injurer had a 
pecuniary interest in the life of the person injured. Persons 
may be presumed not to have intended injurious conduct, which 
was manifestly contrary to their pecuniary interests. Yet tiio 
infliction of punishment in case of immediate death, shows that 
this was only a subordinate principle of evidence, and that the 
intentional killing of a servant, when it was clearly j)roved, was 
a crime of the same nature, and rendered the culprit hable to tlie 
same penalties, as the killing of any other person in like circum- 
stances. 

4. Ex. xxi. 10 : "He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or 
if he be found in his possession, he shall surely be jiut to death." 
Deut. xxiv. 7 : " If a man be fi)und stealing any of his brelh- 
ren of the children of Israel, and makelh nserchandise of him or 
selleth him, then that thief shall die, and thuu shalt put away evil 
from among you." Man-stealing is here prohibited by the se- 
verest penalties. The crime delined under this title, is evident, 
ly that of seizing a human being with a view to reduce him to a 
state of servitude, and subsefjuently treating him and dis|>osing 
of him as a servant under the power of a maater. It applied of 

3* 



26 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

course to tlie seizure of children, as well as to that of persons 
of mature age. The penalty of man-stealing was death. 

5. Ex. xxi. 26, 27 : " And if a man smite the eye of his- 
servant or the eye of his maid, he shall let him go free for his 
eye's sake ; and if he smite out his servant's tooth or his maid's- 
tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." This law 
was designed to protect servants from personal injury. Injuries 
of the eye and tooth only, are particularly mentioned. Other- 
personal injuries of a serious nature undoubtedly entitled theser- 
vant to a similar privilege. " The eyes and teeth," says Rosen- 
miiler, " seem to be here used as examples of the greatest and 
least mutilation ; in conformity with which, sentence was to be 
given in all analogous cases of mutilation whatever. The loss 
of a finger or other member, was a greater injury than that of 
a tooth, and less than that of an eye." 

6. Ex. xxii. 3 : "If he (a thief) have nothing, then he shall 
be sold for his theft." 

If a thief was unable to make the restitution for his theft which 
the law required, he might be sold for the amount wanting. 
It does not appear from this law, that tlie thief was sold into per- 
manent servitude, but that he was sold for a time sufficient to 
raise the amount wanted to fulfill the law of restitution for theft. 
The institution required was four or five-fold according to the 
nature of the articles stolen, and the amount of injury done. 
Ex. xxii. 1. 

The preceding laws were enacted 1491 B. C, at the time 
of the giving of the law from Mount Sinai. Considerable time 
was occupied in settling the Hebrew polity, in building the tab- 
ernacle, &c., as far as these are related to have been carried 
forward in Exodus. The enactments and occurrences recorded 
in Leviticus, are supposed to have belonged to the following 
year, 1490 B. C. 

7. Lev. xix. 20 : " And if a man lieth carnally with a woman 
that is a maid-servant, espoused to a husband and not duly re- 
deemed, nor her freedom given her, she shall be scourged. They 
shall not be put to death, because she was not free." 

The word here translated scourged, means examined, exposed, 
animadverted upon, and lastly, punished, without indicating the 
particular kind of punishment intended. As a matter of fact, 
scourging was probably the kind of punishment inflicted in such 
cases, and that on the man as well as on the woman, and with a 
severity proportioned to the supposed criminality of the offend- 



THE SERVITUDE OF THE MOSAIC INSTITUTES. 27 

crs. Death was the penalty for the same crime, if committed 
with a free woman in similar circumstances. This is intimated 
by the reason given for the milder punishment inflicted in this case : 
" They shall not be put to death, because she was not free." 
And a law to that elfect is recorded in Deut. xxii. 23, 24, B. C, 
1451, after an interval of thirty-nine years. 

It does not appear that in any other case except that specified in 
Lev. xix. 20, the laws which guarded the chastity of lemale servants, 
differed from those relating to other females. Deut. xxii. 28, 29, 
8. Lev. XXV. 8— 10; verses 10, 54: " And ye shall hallow 
the fiftieth year, and proclaim liherty throughout the land to all 
the inhabitants thereof. It shall be a jubilee unto you, and yc 
shall return every man to his possession, and ye shall return 
every man to his family." 

During tliis year the Israelites recovered their lands, however 
they might have been lost ; and all who were held in a state of 
servitude, not a modification of the marriage relation, were re- 
leased and made free. The object of this law was, to prevent 
oppression. Verse 14 : " Ye shall not oppress one another, a 
man his brother." The same is repeated verse 17, with the in- 
junction of the fear of the Lord, as the corresponding and anti- 
thetical duty, where the word translated another, is r.^^y neigh- 
bor or fellow. 

It does not appear that the law limiting the servitude of the 
Israelites to six years, or that requiring the proclamation of lib- 
erty to all the inhabitants of the land every fiftieth year, applied 
to heathen servants. The phrase inhabitants of the land, seems 
to denote Israelites, those and those only who adopted the nation- 
al religion and became incorporated with the nation ; a privilege 
secured to all. Gen. xvii. 12 — 14. 

Lev. xxv. 44 — 46, which follows almost immediately after the 
enactments respecting the year of jubilee, seems to recjuii-e this 
limitation, as it contains a manifijst exception to the rule by which 
the nation was to be governed in dealing with Israelites, and states 
expressly, that they might deal wiUi the heathen according to a 
different rule. The words translated bondmen and bondmaids, 
in Lev. xxv. 44, and in several other places, are the same as those 
which are usually and more correctly translated men-servants 
and maid-servants, and ought to be uniformly so translated. 

Israelites were not allowed to be held in permanent servitude, 
because they were the Lord's servants. Lev. xxv. 41 — 43. This 
reason did not exist or apply in favor of limiting the servitude of 



28 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

the heathen. When they became the Lord's servants, then they 
were entitled to the privilege of a hmited servitude under the 
Theocracy, and to the other privileges of Israelites, but not till then. 

The more rigorous servitude to which the heathen were allow- 
ed to be reduced, was required to be administered with justice 
and humanity. It does not appear to have differed from the sex- 
ennial servitude of the Israelites, except in being for an indefinite 
pei'iod. In a community which was designed to be strictly re- 
ligious, all the arrangements and regulations of which were de- 
signed to promote the exercise and cultivation of piety, it is not 
strange that a difference should be made in respect to privileges 
between those who were professedly the servants of God, and 
those who were not. 

God brings various evils upon men as sinners. He does so 
in regard to the heathen generally, and his justice in doing so is 
unimpeachable. He had a right to appoint a rigorous system 
of servitude for the purpose of discouraging the wickedness of 
those heathen who fell into the hands of the Israelites. He had 
a right to make his own people the administrators of his displea- 
sure against the heathen, as such, by means of the system of 
servitude, which he authorized them to exercise over this class of 
their fellow men. 

The Divine warrant was enough to justify the administrator. 
If such a warrant could be pleaded for slavery in modern times, 
and by christian nations, it would amply justify the administration 
of that. But it cannot. The perpetual servitude of the slave 
is not based in any degree on religious considerations. He is 
not consigned to this servitude on the ground of his being a hea- 
then, or on the ground of any other moral delinquency. He 
may be the most devoted of God's servants, and submit most 
cheerfully to the religious and political institutions of the land, 
those of slavery alone excepted, and be kept in slavery still. 

Besides, the character of servitude is not to be determined 
merely by a consideration of the length of time during which it 
may last, but of the principles upon wliich it is founded, and by 
which it is administered. A system of servitude may be un- 
righteous, though it lasts but a day ; and it may be righteous, 
though extended to many years. The Israelites were not allow- 
ed to reduce the heathen indiscriminately to a state of servitude. 
The law did not distinguish between stealing and oppressing a 
heathen and an Israelite. None, whether Israelites or heathen, 
could lawfullv be reduced to a state of servitude, without just 



THE SERVITUDE OF THE MOSAIC INSTITUTES. 20 

cause or a divine warrant ; and none could lawfully be retained 
in that state exce])t on similar grounds. 

The institution of the year of release and of jubilee, as re- 
corded in Lev. xxv. took place 1490 B. C. The renewal of 
the former is recorded in Dcut. xv. 1 — 11, in 1451 B. C, thirty- 
nine years later than its first ap[)ointment by Divine authority. 

In Deut. XV. 12 — 18, is a re-enactment of the statute record, 
ed hi Ex. xxi. 1 — 7, in relation to the sexennial servitude of 
the Israelites ; also hi relation to the only sp(;cics of perpetual 
servitude which was allowed, and which was sealed by boring 
the ear of the servant with an awl, &c. 

Here there is an additional statute in respect to the sexennial 
release of servants, requiring them to be furnished liberally at the 
time of their release, with whatever is needful for their comfort. 

Deut. XV. 13, 14: "And when thou sendest him out free 
from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty : thou shalt fur- 
nish him hberally out of thy flock, ajid out of thy floor, and out 
of thy wme-press ; of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath 
blessed thee, thou shalt give him." 

The law in respect to a sexennial release applied to ordinaiy 
maid-servants, in the same manner as it did to men-servants. 
Deut. XV. 17: "And also imto thy maid-servant thou shdt do 
likewise." 

9. Deut. xxiii. 15, 16 : "Thou shalt not deliver to his master 
the servant who is escaped from his master unto thee. Ho 
shall dwell with thee, even among you, in whatever place ho 
shall choose, witliin one of thy gates where it pleaseth him best. 
Thou shalt not oppress him." The Israelites in the land of Ca- 
naan were surrounded by nations less enhghtened and humane 
than themselves. Among these nations scr\ants were often op- 
pressed. This law provides, that if any person of a foreign na- 
tion, held in unrighteous servitude, fled to them, he shouKI Ix; i*e- 
ceived and protected as a freeman, and jieither returned to his 
master, nor oppressed by them. It made the Theocracy tho 
sanctuary of the oppressed, from all nations. This law recog- 
nizes also the right of all persons to liberty, who are competent 
to take care of themselves. It applied to servants held among 
the Israelites, equally with others. If such left their m.'isters, 
they were allowed to shift for themselves, and if competent to 
take care of themselves without submitting to a state of servi- 
tude, they were allowed to do so. 

The servants among the Hebrews, so far as servitude was rcg. 



30 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

ulated by law, comprehended concubines, or females held in a 
kind of marriage state, as wives of an inferior class, and ser- 
vants not held in any modification of the marriage state, or 
common servants. The subjection of concubines to their mas- 
ters, was analogous to that of wives to their husbands, and was 
rewarded with corresponding privileges. The condition and 
rights of the concubine were, in most respects, similar to those 
of the wife. 

This institution, however, was evidently one of the inventions 
of man, which God did not originally appoint, as he did that of 
marriage, and which he never sanctioned. There is a natural 
demand for the institution of marriage, as it was estabhshed by 
God ; but there is none for that of concubinage. The demand 
for concubinage is unnatural and criminal. 

This institution existed in the time of Abraham, and was up- 
held by him and succeeding patriarchs. Moses found it still 
prevalent, and laid it under such restrictions as he consistently 
could, but did not abolish it. What instructions he gave, and 
what doctrines he promulgated on this subject, farther than is re- 
corded in the brief history he has given us of his doings and in- 
structions, we know not. It is to be presumed that the inspired 
autiior of the first five books of the Holy Bible, was not igno- 
rant of the disagreement between the institution of concubinage, 
as it existed in the times of the patriarchs, and as defined in his 
institutes, and that of marriage, as established by God, and re- 
corded by himself, under Divine direction, in Gen. ii. 21 — 24. 
The institution of marriage, as instituted by God, was different 
from that of concubinage, in several important respects. 

The other classes of servants besides concubines, compre- 
hended both males and females, and corresponded more nearly 
to that of apprentices among us, than to that of slaves. No per- 
son was consigned to permanent servitude, except by his own 
choice, or else as a punishment for crimes, pai'ticularly the 
crime of theft; and that only when legal restitution required 
his sale as a servant for life. When there would arise a neces- 
sity to sell a thief, in order to make legal restitution for the things 
stolen, his sale for a Umited time, was all that the c^se required. 
In ordinary cases, no person could acquire authority over another 
as a master, for more than six years, without the servant's 
consent, expressed before the civil and ecclesiastical authority, 
in a manner prescribed, and that after six year's trial of the 
service of the master chosen. 



SERVITUDE OF THE MOSAIC INSTITUTES. 31 

How far the Mosaic system of servitude was agreeable to the 
principles of natural justice and pure religion, it may not be easy 
to decide. Concubinage was undoubtedly wrong. It was a 
manifest corruption of God's institution of marriage, and was 
attended with undoubted marks of the Divine displeasure, both 
before and after the time of Moses. 

Unnumbered and severe trials to Abraham, to Jacob, to Da- 
vid, and to Solomon, emenated from this source, and from sins 
of a similar nature. The institution of concubinage was per- 
mitted to continue by Moses probably for the same reason that 
he permitted divorces for trivial causes at the pleasure of the 
husband. Deut. xxiv. 1 ; Matt. v. 31, 32; xix. 3 — 9. 

In answer to the question. Why, then, if it was wrong, did 
Moses command to give writing of divorcement, and to put the 
wife away ? Jesus Christ replied, Matt. xix. 8 : " Moses, because 
of the hardness of your hearts, sulfered you to put away your 
wives ; but from the beginning it was not so. Verse 9 : 
Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, 
and shall marry another, committeth adultery ; and whoso mar- 
rieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery." 

If Moses tolerated any violations of the principles of natural 
justice in the laws which he enacted on the subject of servitude, 
they may be explained in a similar manner. If injustice was 
tolerated, it was only tolerated for want of power to suppress it. 
It was not approved, still less enforced as a duty which any one 
was bound to perform. 

The servitude of those who were not held as concubines, but 
as ordinary servants, was not necessarily, j)erhaps not gener- 
ally criminal. It originated either in the convenience or neces- 
sities of the servant. It was commenced and continued witii 
liis consent, or with that of his parents or other lawful guar- 
dians. In ordinary cases he could not dispose of his liberties 
by making himself the servant of his fellow man, for a longer 
period than six years, at the expiration of wliich he became 
free. 

The law respecting those born in servitude, is not fully ex- 
plained, or at least is not as ex|)licit a.s might bo desired. It af- 
fords no evidence, however, that the children of Israelites coulil 
be forcibly retained in servitude after becoming of age ; and 
since it is hardly credible that such could have been the fact, 
without evidence of it having been incorporated in tiie Mosaic 
history and institutes, we are authorized to suppose that it was 



32 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

not the fact ; and we are left to infer, that the children of Israel- 
itish servants became free at the same age ns other children. 

It is common at the present time to engage persons as servants 
for a year or for years, without at all depriving them of their 
liberties to such an extent as to be oppressive. Apprenticeship 
is a species of servitude which is usually extended through sev- 
eral years. Persons are frequently sold into this species of 
servitude by their parents or guardians without being oppressed, 
because it is with their consent and for their benefit. The same 
was probably the case with the sexennial servitude of the Jews. 
Persons sold themselves, or those of whom they had the right- 
eous guardianship into it, for their own benefit, and when the 
period of servitude agreed upon expired, the servants resumed 
their freedom. Every seventh year the servant resumed his 
freedom by law, just as the young man becomes free at 21 years 
of age. 

The Hebrew servants were laid under no legal disabilities in 
respect to education or religion. They might be educated in 
the most perfect manner ; and were entitled to all the privileges 
of religious instruction and worship, which were necessary for 
their spiritual and temporal welfare. Whenever they were com- 
petent to support themselves in independence, they were pro- 
tected by law in deserting their masters, and in the honest sup- 
port of themselves as freemen. 

The system of sexennial servitude must have been attended with 
several advantages to the servant as well as to the master. It af- 
forded him a somewhat permanent location ; and saved him the 
expense and loss of time incident to frequent removals from 
place to place, and from one employer or master to another. 
It also tended more or less to promote stability of character, 
to strengthen habits of order and regularity, and to prevent both 
idleness, expense, and dissipation. For aught we know, it may 
have been as necessary and as useful in the state of society 
then existing, as the prevailing system of apprenticeship is now. 
B_y making the relation of servant as a general rule somewhat 
permanent, the Mosaic institutes gave him an interest in the 
family to which he belonged, and that family an interest in him, 
which could not have been created in any other way. The ser- 
vant was not a transient and perpetually-shifling appendage to 
the family of his master, but almost a permanent member of 
it. The interests of the family were of course identified with 



SERVITUDE OF THE MOSAIC INSTITUTES. 33 

his own, in a degree corresponding to the permanence of liis re- 
lations as a servant. 

The servitude autliorized by the Mosaic institutes, was modi- 
fied both by the general character of those institutes, and by 
many specific and general laws, not relating particularly to this 
subject. 

The fundamental principles of the Mosaic economy arc de- 
veloped in the following passages : — Deut. vi. 5 : "And thou shalt 
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, 
and with all thy might." So Deut. x. 12. 

Lev. xix. 13 : " Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither 
rob him. The wages of him that is hired shall not abide with 
thee all night until the morning.'' 15. " Ye shall do no un- 
righteousness in judgment. Thou shalt not respect the {)erson of 
the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty ; but in right- 
eousness shah thou judge thy neighbor." 17. " Thou shaltnot 
hate thy brother in thy heart." 33,34. "And if a stranger 
sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the 
stranger that dwelleth with you, shall be unto you as one born 
among you ; and thou shalt love him as thyself, for ye were stran- 
gers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God." 

Deut. X. 19: " Love ye therefore the stranger, for ye were 
strangers in the land of 'Eg\pt." Deut. i. 16, 17. 

Lev. XXV. 17 : "Ye shall not therefore oppress one another, 
but thou shalt fear thy God, for I am the Lord your God." 
35 — 37 : " And if thy brother be waxen poor and follen into 
decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he be a 
stranger or a sojourner, he shall be with thee and serve thee unto 
the year of jubilee. Take thou no usury of him or increase, 
but tear thy God, that thy brother may live with thee. Thou 
shalt not give him thy money u[)on usury, nor lend him thy vict- 
uals for increase." 

The principles of benevolence and mercy were iiiculcate<i 
in the Mosaic institutes, as a part of the civil and ecclesiastical 
law of the land. They were not merely assumi'd and protessed 
by voluntary associations into which those only entered who 
choose, but they were enjoined upon the whole nation its a part 
of tlieir national law, and enforced by the most solemn tuul 
weighty sanctions. 

The specific enactments and general usages of the Mosaic 
institutes in respect to servitude, have all been noticed, and to 
some extent illustrated, in the tbregoing passages of this section. 

4 



34 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

The servitude of these institutes is sometimes represented as 
being substantially the same as modern slavery, particularly 
that of the United States ; and the fact that the former was 
authorized by IMoses, is supposed to furnish a Scriptural warrant 
for the latter at the present time. 

This point is one of so much consequence, that it may be 
worth while here to notice some respects in which the servitude 
of the Mosaic institutes differs from that denominated slavery, 
and known by the title of slavery in modern times. 

1. The Mosaic servitude was sexennial, except when the ser- 
vant, after having completed one period of servitude, chose to 
to bind himself to his former master as a servant for hfe, and 
that for his own benefit ; whereas slavery is for life. 

2. The Mosaic servitude was not founded on a peculiarity of 
complexion ; slavery is. 

3. In the case of those who embraced the true religion, the 
Mosaic servitude was not hereditary, except during the period 
of the child 's minority. Slavery is hereditary for life. 

4. The master under the Mosaic institutes, does not appear 
to have possessed any greater authority over his servants, than 
he did over his children. The slave holder does. 

5. The ]\Iosaic servitude did not divest those subjected to it 
of their rights and privileges as men ; particularly the right to 
enjoy God's institutions, that of Divine worship, of marriage, 
and the benefits of obedience to every part of his law. Slavery 
divests its subjects of all these rights. Slaves may neither wor- 
ship God, enjoy the institution of marriage, or obey any part 
of the Divine law, except by permission of their masters. 

6. The Mosaic servitude did not deprive its subjects of the 
rights of citizens, particularly that of the same legal protection 
which was extended to others. Slavery does. 

7. The Mosaic servitude was the natural result of men's ne- 
cessities, and was supported no farther than circumstances made 
its support necessary. Slavery is unnatural and is sustained 
by a cruel and unjust system of legislation, which has no other 
object but to support it, and to create and perpetuate a necessi- 
ty for it. 

8. The permanent servitude of the heathen authorized by 
Moses, was founded on a religious and moral distinction desig- 
nated by God, and did not necessarily involve injustice of any 
kind or degree. The contrary is true of slaver3^ 

9. The labor of the servant under the Mosaic servitude was for 



NK\V TESTAMENT DOCTRINES KESPECTING SERVITUDE. 35 

value received. The servant submitted to tiuit relation either to 
cancel an obligation of justice, or to procure for hiuiseif s|)C- 
cific benefits, which in his opinion lie could not so well securc by 
any other means. The only instances in which tiiis was not the 
case, are when enemies devoted to destruction by express judg- 
ment of God, seem to have had their sentence of death commu- 
ted for one of servitude. But even in cases of this kind, the 
civil and ecclesiastical polity of the Israelites required the ex- 
ercise of that justice and mercy towards their captives which is 
incompatible vvitli uncompensated or even partially compensa- 
ted servitude. Slavery does not recognize the principles of jus- 
tice. It does not concede the right to a full compensation for 
servile labor. 

There is a fundamental difference between slaveiy and the 
servitude of the Mosaic institutes. If the latter therefore wa.s a 
righteous and benevolent institution, if it wjis founded and ad- 
ministered in equity, it does not follow as a matter of course, 
that slavery is righteous. For the two institutions are almost 
entirely dissimilar. If, however, the servitude of the IsraeUtes 
was in any respect unrighteous, slavery is fltr more so. 

Besides, the Mosaic servitude was adapted to peculiar circum- 
stances. Moses undoubtedly did right in tolerating and modify- 
ing it as he did. But it does not follow that a perfectly similar 
system of servitude would be adapted to our diflerent circum- 
stances ; or that it would be right for our government to adopt 
such a system, or for our citizens to lend it their countenance or 
support, even if it were authorized and established by law. 
The contrary is manifestly true in res|)ect to that part of the 
Mosaic servitude which related to concubinage, and it may be 
true of other parts. 



SECTION III. 

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINES RESPECTING SERVITI'DE. 

The religion of the New Testament is substantially the same 
as that of tlie Old. It is the religion of tiie true GoA, who is tiio 
same yesterday, to-day, and forever ; and the religion of fallen 



36 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

man under similar dispensations of grace, and sustaining similar 
relations to God, and other intelligent and moral beings. The 
doctrines of the Bible are parts of one great harmonious system of 
truth, which can never change or pass away. They embrace 
distinctions between right and wrong, which are universal and 
perpetual. As a general rule, things which were right in the 
days of Adam, and Abraham, and Moses, are right now ; and 
those which are wrong now, were wrong then. This is the fact 
in respect to all our conduct, so far as it involves the permanent 
and universal principles of morality. Where these principles are 
not involved, it may be otherwise. Things may be right now 
which were not always so ; and may have been right once which 
are not so now. This is true of all that conduct which is made 
requisite and obligatory by temporary circumstances or precepts, 
but which is not required by any permanent laws. It is an ex- 
cellence of the Divine government, that in most things we are 
required to regulate our conduct by universal and permanent 
laws. To these the Bible principally relates, and in the investi- 
gation and right understanding of them, we have the greatest 
interest. The universal and permanent laws of human action 
are always obligatory, except when suspended or dispensed with 
by God. 

As is the case with most other subjects of a moral nature, so 
in respect to servitude, important information may be expected 
in the New Testament. Especially if the subject was not am- 
ply explained in the Old Testament, we may reasonably expect 
a development of it in the New, which will supply whatever 
was wanting. 

1. 1 Cor. vii. 20 — 23 : " Let every man abide in the same 
calling wherein he was called. Art thou called, being AouXoj, a 
servant ? care not for it ; but if thou mayest (or canst) be made 
free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a 
servant, is the Lord's freeman ; likewise also, he that is called 
being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price ; be 
not ye the servants of men." 

This passage is addressed to the church at Corinth, one of the 
cities of Greece. The epistle in wliich it occurs is supposed to 
liave been written from Ephesus, near the close of the three and 
a half years that Paul labored in that city, A. D. 60. The ser- 
vitude here referred to, is that which existed under the laws of 
Greece and Rome. Whether that servitude was righteous, the 
apostle does not say. He did not feel called upon in the circum- 



NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINES RESPECTING SERVITUDE. .'37 

Stances then existing, to express an opinion in liis epistle on tliat 
subject, whatever ho may have done in private, and on other 
occasions. 

He addresses himself in this passage, not to masters, i)ut to 
servants ; and declares, not the duty of tlie former, but of tlic 
latter. His instructions on this occasion, embrace tlie following 
injunctions upon servants : 

(1.) That they should endure their servile condition with pa- 
tience, and not disquiet themselves with sinful re|)inings, or un- 
availing solicitude and regret, on that account. Vei-se 21. 

(2.) But still if it was possible for tliem to be free, aXX' ei xai 
dvvri(f ai, they wei'c required to secure their freedom, and not vol- 
untarilv to continue in the servitude then existing and prevalent. 
Verse 21. 

(3.) " Ye are bought with a price; be not ye tlie servants of 
men," (verse 23,) evidently prohibits the exercise of a servile 
spirit, and an undue voluntary subjection to the authority of man 
in any relation, particularly that of master or slaveholder, on the 
ground that we are the servants of Christ, and that a due dis- 
charge of the duties we owe him, is incompatible with servile sub- 
jection to human authority. Tlie reason here assigned lor not 
voluntarily submitting to a state of servitude, such as then pre- 
vailed, is the same as that given in Lev. xxv. 42, for proliibiting 
the exercise of rigorous authority over the Israelites ; namely, 
that they were the servants of God. 

This passage, which, considered by itself, contains a literal 
and absolute injunction not to submit to the servitude of those 
times, is doubtless to be interpreted in contbrmity with verse 21, 
in which the same requirement is susj)ended on the condition, if 
you are able to obtain your freedom, that is, able to obtain it in 
a consistent manner. 

2. 1 Tim. vi. 1, 2 : " Let as many servants as are under the 
yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that iUv name of 
God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that iiavo 
believing masters, let them not desj)ise tiuMn l)ecause they are 
brethren, but rather do them service because; they are liiitiiful 
and beloved, oi tyis s-jspyscfiag avriXafx/Savofisvoi, participators in well- 
doing." Well-doing denotes not only justice, l)ut kindness. To 
participate in well-doing, is to do justice and exercise kindness, 
particularly the latter. 

This passage occurs in the epistle of Paul to Timothy. Tim- 
othy seems to have been at this time tlic presiding minister of 

4* 



38 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

the church in Ephesus. 1 Tim. i. 3, 4 : " As I besought thee to 
abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou 
mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, neither 
give heed to fables," &;c. 

The duties of servants were such as seemed to require apos- 
tolic counsel and advice. Even Timothy, who was by no means 
a novice in the knowledge of the christian religion, or in the ad- 
ministration of its truths, was judged by the apostle to need the 
authoritative counsel and advice of the passage before us, for his 
direction in this difficult part of pastoral duty. 

(1.) Persons under the yoke of servitude, were required to 
honor their masters as such ; that is, to obey them in all things 
which were reasonable, not on the ground that those masters 
had a righteous claim to their services, but that the name of God 
and his doctrine might not be blasphemed. This seems to have 
been intended particularly for those whose masters were unbe- 
lievers ; and in the next verse there follows a similar admonition 
to those whose masters were professed believers in Christ, and 
professed followers of him. 

(2.) Persons under the yoke of servitude, to believing masters, 
were required not to despise them because they were christians, 
and in that respect only, their equals and brethren ; but to do 
them service as christians and friends, and as persons participa- 
ting with themselves in the exercise of true benevolence and jus- 
tice, and who consequently might be expected to treat them 
with kindness, and equitably to compensate them for whatever 
service they performed. 

Christians may have retained persons as servants, without re- 
taining them as slaves. The yoke of servitude which they im- 
posed, may have been very different from that of the heathen. 
The fact of its being called by the same name, does not prove it 
to be the same thing. 

These instructions do not necessarily imply that christians held 
their servants as slaves. They are perfectly appropriate on the 
contrary supposition. Had the servants referred to, been held 
as hired-servants, or as apprentices, they would still have been 
servants, and the apostolic injunction would have been appropri- 
ate. The supposition that they were so held, is most accordant 
with the nature of Christianity and with known facts. It is there- 
fore to be preferred in the present case. 

3. 1 Pet. ii. 18, 19: "Servants, 6i oixsTai, be subject to your 
masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to 



NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINES RESPECTING SERVITUDE. 39 

the froward ; for this is thank-worthy, if a man for conscience 
towards God, endure grief, suffering wrongfully." 

The first epistle of Peter was addressed to christians scattered 
throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia ; 
provinces in Asia Minor, where the Grecian and Roman systems 
of servitude prevailed. This a])0stle gives substantially the same 
directions as Paul in 1 Tim. vi. 1, 2. He does not require 
christian servants to obey their masters and submit to their au- 
thority, on the ground that the institution as it existed in those re- 
gions, was a righteous institution, and agreeable to the will of 
God ; but he requires them to submit to injustice in the peculiar 
circumstances in which they were placed, and from a regard to 
the will and glory of God. This is often the duty of christians in 
other relations and conditions besides those of servants. It was, 
however, peculiarly the duty of servants at that time, and may in 
many cases be their duty still. Peter enforces the injunction of 
submission to injustice, in the context, by an effecting reference 
to the example of Christ : " who, when he was reviled, reviled not 
again ; when he suifercd, threatened not, but committed himself 
to liim that judgeth righteously." Verse 23. 

In imitation of that illustrious example, the oppressed servants 
of those times were encouraged to bear their oppressions with 
meekness, and to leave all their wrongs to be redressed by God, 
when he will bring every work into judgment, with every secret 
tiling, whether it be good or evil. 

4. Eph. vi. 5 — 9 : " Servants, be obedient to them that are 
masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in single- 
ness of your heart, a.s unto Christ ; not with eye service, as men- 
pleasers ; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God 
from the heart ; with good-\\ill doing service as to the Lord, and 
not to men ; knowing that whatsoever good thing any man docth, 
the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond (tJouXoj, 
a servant) or free. And ye masters, do the same things unto them, 
forbearing threatening, knowing that your master is in heaven, 
neither is there respect of persons with him." Paul liad labored 
personally in Ephesus, for the space of three yeai-s. Acts xx. 31 . 
Several years after the completion of these labors, while he was 
a prisoner at Rome, he wrote the epistle in which the foregoing 
passage of inspired Scri[)ture occurs. Eph. vi. 20. 

(L) This passage contains an injunction upon servants, of obe- 
dience to their masters, enforced by the consideration, that for 
whatever good thing a man doeth, he shall be duly and amply 



40 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

rewarded by God, even though he may fail of receiving a just 
recompense from men. 

(2.) The same rule of action is prescribed for masters as for 
servants : " And ye masters, do the same things unto them," &c. 
It appears from this as well as from one of the passages before 
quoted, that the relation of masters was not incompatible with a 
profession of the christian religion. Masters, however, may be 
the masters of hired-servants, or of apprentices. They may 
have held their servants not as property, but as fellow men, ren- 
dering to them that which is just and equal. Such masters none 
will condemn. The admonition to them in the passage under 
consideration, is peculiarly solemn and impressive. They were 
required to forbear threatening, and of course all other abusive 
and unkind treatment of their servants, and to do their duty to 
them in all respects, as unto Christ ; knowing too that they had 
a master in heaven, with whom there is no respect of persons. 
Under such a law slavery cannot exist. Let such a law be 
enacted and carried into etfect at the South, and slavery will be 
abolished. 

5. Col. iii. 22 — 25; iv. 1 : " Servants, obey in all things your 
masters, according to the flesh, not with eye service, as men- 
pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing God. And whatso- 
ever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not to men ; 
knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the in- 
heritance, for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth 
wrong, shall receive for the wrong he hath done ; and there is 
no respect of persons. IMasters give to your servants that 
which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a master in 
heaven." 

This passage corresponds in every part, to Eph. vi. 5 — 9. 
The sentiments are the same, and the phraseology is unusually 
similar to that of the corresponding passage in Ephesians. 

The obligation to render to servants that which is just and 
equal, is an obligation to treat them as moral and immortal be- 
ings, and to respect their temporal and eternal interests. The 
rule of justice is the law of God, of love. It strikes at the root 
of servile oppression, both as it existed among the ancients and 
in modern times. 

6. Titus ii. 9, 10 : "Exhort servants to be obedient to their 
own masters, and to please them well in all things, not answer- 
ing again; not purloining, but showing all good fidelity, that 
they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour." This re- 



NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINES RESPECTING SERVITUDE. 41 

quirement, and the argument by wliicli it is enforced, correspond 
to those already noticed. 

7. Phil. 8 — 21: " Whercfore tlioiigh having much confidence 
in Christ, to enjoin upon tlice that which is convenient. Yet I 
rather beseech by love ; teing such as Paul the aged, and now 
also a prisoner of Jesus Christ. 1 beseech thee for my son ( )ne. 
simus, whom I have begotten in my i^onds ; formerly unprofita- 
ble to thee, but now useful both to thee and me, whom I liave 
sent back, (and do thou receive him as the object of my strong- 
est love,) wliom I should wish to retain with myself, tiiat in thy 
stead he might minister to me in the bonds of the gospel. But 
without thy consent I would not do it, that thy benefit may not 
be, as it were, of necessity, but willingly. For perhaps he was 
removed for a time, that you might have him forever ; no longer 
as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, especially 
by me, and how mucli more by yourself, both in the flesh and 
in the Lord. If thou count me therelbre a partner, receive him 
as myself. If he has wronged thee, or oweth tiiee any thing, 
charge it to me. I Paul have written with my own hand. 1 
will pay it. But I do not mention that thou owest me thyself. 
Yes, brother, let me derive advantage from you in the Lord. 
Confiding in thy obedience, I have written to thee, knowing that 
thou wilt do even more than I say." 

This passage, as it stands in our common Bible, has often 
been triumphantly quoted, as containing a Scriptural warrant 
for the servitude of the Greeks and Romans, and consequently 
for similar systems of oppression in modern times. Onesimus 
lias been repeatedly described as a runaway slave, sent back by 
Paul to his master, to be held in continual servitude. 

But how was this runaway servant to be received by his form- 
er master ? " Not now, or not any longer as a servant, but al)ovc 
a servant, a brother beloved ;" (verse 10,) as Paul himself. Verse 
17. He was not to be held responsible ibr any damage he might 
formerly have done his master, or any obligations he might have 
incurred ; but all this was to be charged to Paul, and he solemn- 
ly engages to satisfy every demand of tiiis kind. Verse 19. 

The declaration, that jjerhaps Onesimus was removeil from 
his master lor a time, that the latter might enjoy liim forever, 
(verse 15,) manifestly relates to a future state of glory ; not to a 
state of confirmed servitude on earth. The language is plainly 
applicable to a future state, and the context requires that it should 
be interpreted in that sense. See verses 13, 14, and 1^, lU, 



42 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

But it may be asked by some, why did Paul recognize the right 
of Philemon to Onesimus as his servant, by making the requests 
which he did, if that servitude was wrong ? Answer : 

(1.) Because Philemon probably had a legal right to him in 
that relation, which was not yet dissolved. 

(2.) Onesimus may have been indebted to Philemon for mis- 
conduct, and for benefits received by himself, for which no ade- 
quate compensation had been made. 

(3.) Since no particular reason is assigned in the epistle re- 
lating to this subject, it is altogether possible, that there were pe- 
culiar reasons for this procedure, which the apostle did not think 
proper to mention, and which it is impossible for us to recover 
fi'om that oblivion in which they are now lost. 

Onesimus appears, from the high character given of him in 
this epistle, and in Col. iv. 9, to have been a man of uncommon 
excellence and moral worth, probably of high intellectual attain- 
ments. 

The interpretation of the epistle relating to him, which con- 
signs to perpetual servitude so distinguished a servant of Christ, 
is manifestly partial and erroneous. 

8. In 1 Tim. i. 10, men-stealers, or those who enslave their 
fellow men, are numbered with the worst of criminals, and we 
are informed that the law is made particularly for them, that is, 
for their conviction, and unless they repent, for their punishment. 
If those who enslave their fellow men are the worst of criminals, 
those who purchase them, and hold them in perpetual bondage, 
are not innocent. 

9. Matt. XX. 25—28: "But Jesus called them and said. Ye 
know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over 
them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them ; 
but it shall not be so among you. But whosoever will be great 
among you, let him be your minister ; and whosoever wHl be 
chief among you, let him be your servant : even as the Son of 
man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give 
his life a ransom for many." See also Mark x. 42 — 45. 

This passage contains an exposition of the principles on which 
the visible kingdom of Christ is established on earth. This 
kingdom is not like those of men, where some are exalted to 
great honors and emoluments at the expense of others. The 
fundamental principle of its constitution, is the principle of be- 
nevolence. The subjects of this kingdom are all required to 
serve one another according to their respective abilities and ne- 



NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINES RESPECTING SERVITUDE. 43 

cessities. The principle whicli is so clearly asserted in the pas- 
sage before us, applies not only to ecclesiastical matters, forbid- 
ding unrighteous and despotic domination in them, but it applies 
to all mailers in which the temporal or eternal interests of men 
are involved. The subjects of Christ are required in all things, 
to serve each other, and are not allowed to subordinate either the 
temporal or eternal interests of their fellow men, to their own. 

Any relations, therefore, which are inconsistent with this, are 
proliibited by the law of Cln-ist, and inconsistent with the chris- 
tian religion. "It shall not be so among you," <Szc. 

Matt. xxii. 37 — 40 : "Jesus said unto liim, thou shalt love the 
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with 
all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment, and the 
second is like unto it : Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 
On tliese two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." 

These words contain our Saviour's answer to the question, 
"Which is the great commandment in the law ?" We are here 
informed, that the first and most fundamental duty of religion, 
and of man as a moral being, is that of loving God with all the 
heart and soul. 

The obligation next in importance is like unto it, namely, 
that we should love our fellow men as we do ourselves. Tiiese, 
says the Redeemer, are the two fundamental duties of rcligion, 
and are enforced upon mankind by the highest authority and 
greatest penalties. All the other requirements of the law of 
Moses, and of the writings of the later prophets, are represent- 
ed as subordinate to these, and as growing out of them. But 
love workethno ill to our neighbor. Rom. xiii. 10. It dictates 
the same respect for the interests and rights of our fellow men, 
that we have for those of our children or of ourselves. It is 
therefore incompatible with slavery. Love to men is the basis 
of every precept contained in the second table of the ten com- 
mandments. It is the mainspring of all true righteousness in 
the dealings of men with each other. 

The golden rule contained in Matt. vii. 12, is in strict accord- 
ance with the obligation to love our neighbor as ourselves : 
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do 
to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law iuul the j)ro. 
phets." Phil. ii. 4 : "Look not every man on his own things, 
but every man also on the things of others." 

James i. 27: "Pure religion and undefiled, before God and 
the Father, is this, to visit the fatherless and \sido\vs iii their 



44 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." 
iii. 17: "The wisdom that is from above, is first pure, then 
peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good 
fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy." 1 John iii, 
17 : "But whoso hath this world's goods, and seeth his brother 
have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, 
how dwelleth the love of God in him ?" 

Luke xii. 33 : " Sell that ye have, and give alms ; provide 
yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens, 
which faileth not, where no thief approacheth, nor moth cor- 
rupteth." 

Matt. XXV. 34 — 36 : " Then shall the king say unto them on 
his right hand, come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the king- 
dom prepared for you from the foundation of the world ; for I 
was hungry, and ye gave me meat ; I was thirsty, and ye gave 
me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in ; naked, and ye 
clothed me ; sick, and ye visited me ; I was in prison, and ye 
came unto me." 

These passages show clearly that the obligations of benevo- 
lence and mercy are strictly insisted upon in the New Testa- 
ment, and strictly enforced under the christian dispensation. 
Our final acquittal at the judgment seat of Christ, is described 
as taking place in consequence of our having testified our sub- 
mission to his authority, and trust in his merits and intercessions, 
by deeds of substantial kindness and charity. Those who re- 
fuse to do this, are represented as being condemned into ever- 
lasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels. 

The principle is distinctly recognized both in the New Tes- 
tament and Old, that the laborer, generally, is entitled to a recom- 
pense for his services. Lev. xix. 13 : " Thou shalt not defraud 
thy neighbor, neither rob him. The wages of him that is hired, 
shall not abide with thee all night until the morning." Deut. 
xxiv. 14, 15: "Thou shalt not oppress a hired-servant that is 
poor and needy, of thy brethren, or of strangers that are in thy 
land, within thy gates. At liis day thou shalt give him his hire ; 
neither shall the sun go down upon it, for he is poor, and setteth 
his heart upon it ; lest he cry agamst thee to the Lord, and it be 
sin to thee." Ex. xx. 15: "Thou shalt not steal." Luke x. 
7 : " For the laborer is worthy of his hire." 

1 Tim. V. 18 : " For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muz. 
zle the ox that treadeth out the corn ; and the laborer is worthy 
of his reward." 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10 : "For it is written in the law 



NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINES RESPECTING SERVITUDE. 45 

of Moses, Thou shall not muzzle the moutli of the ox that 
treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care of oxen ? or siiith 
he it altogether for our sakes ? For our sakes no douht this is 
written, that he that ploughcth, should plough in ho|)c, and he 
that thresheth in hope, should be partaker of his hope." 

The doctrine of these texts is, that men are cjititled to a fair 
compensation for their services, and tiiat every man is bound to 
respect the right of his fellow men, in regard to the enjoyment 
and use of property. No title to property can be more clear 
and disincumbercd than that of a liuman being to his own men- 
tal and bodily faculties. They are his by gift of CJod. For the 
use and enjoyment of them he is accountable to God. He can- 
not come under an obligation to use them for the benefit of oth- 
ers, on any other principles than those of benevolence and justice. 

The obligation of children to use their faculties for a limited 
period, for the benefit of their parents, and of apprentices to 
labor for the benefit of their masters, is one of justice. Such 
labor is for benefits received. Farther than this, parents have 
no righteous claim on their children, or masters on their appren- 
tices, or on servants of any other kind. So the obligation of 
all men, as far as they can, to relieve distress, and supply the 
wants of the needy, by contributions, of labor, and of otiicr 
property, is an obligation of benevolence. But it is not binding, 
except in agreement with the obligations we are under to our- 
selves, and in suboi'dination to our own higher interests. 

Even a voluntary engagement to subordinate our own inter- 
ests to those of others, any farther than this is consistent with be- 
nevolence and justice, cannot make such a subjection obligatory 
or justifiable. God has charged us with the prosecution of our 
own interests. He requires us to be just and benevolent both 
to ourselves and others. We may not voluntarily or unnecessa- 
rily surrender our own rights any more than we may invade 
those of others. 

It is a settled principle of law, that in commercial transactions, 
no obligation can be created, cxc(3j)t for value received. Hence 
promisory notes arc required to be written in this form. 

From the foregoing examination of the doctrines of the New 
Testament on this subject, it is obvious that they afford no sanc- 
tion to any instance or system of servitude, which violates tin? 
principles of justice. The doctrines of the New Test;iment arc 
those of justice, benevolence, and mercy. Christianify is u sys- 
tern of religious worship, and of social duties, in which every 

5 



46 PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 

principle of justice and benevolence is distinctly recognized, and 
solemnly enforced. 

The New Testament, however, is not to be considered sepa- 
rate from the Old, but in connection with it, as a continuation of 
the same series of Divine revelations, and as completing the de- 
velopments which that left imperfect. 

Both together constitute one Divinely inspired rule of faith and 
practice. They teach one system of religious truth and wor- 
ship, and but one system of social duties. Some of the institu- 
tions of the Old Testament were temporary, and have passed 
away, but its exposition of the principles of justice, benevolence, 
and mercy, are of permanent authority. The New Testament 
does not destroy, but confirm them. They can never be de- 
stroyed, or set aside, because they are founded in the Divine 
character, and the nature of moral creatures, and must therefore 
continue the same, while God and moral creatures continue. 
At the first formation of the christian church, those who entered 
it, came into a state of professed subjection to Christ, and to the 
laws of his kingdom. They henceforth disclaimed the right to 
practice injustice of any kind or degree, however authorized by 
the opinions of men, or sanctioned by human laws. No part of 
the Bible sanctions injustice. In respect to this subject, both 
Testaments beautifully agree. We find no permission in the 
New Testament to hold men as slaves, and no vindication either 
of the principle or practice of slavery. 

AouXog, servant, in the language of the New Testament, is not 
equivalent to the English word slave. The apostles were ser- 
vants, not slaves of Christ. Rom. i. 1 ; Col. iv. 12 ; Phil. i. 1 ; 
2 Pet. i. 1. 

Moses and other prophets are styled the servants of God. 
Heb. iii. 5. 

Servant is in some instances used by Christ in the sense of 
subject, denoting the relation of a man to his lawful sovereign. 
Matt, xviii. 23 ; xxii. 13 ; Luke xix. 13. This usage is fre- 
quent in the Old Testament. 

Christ is said to have taken upon him the form of a servant. 
Phil. ii. 7. He declares that he came into the world not to be 
ministered to, but to minister, or serve. Matt. xx. 28 ; Mark x. 
45, He did not, however, become a slave. 

All christians are denominated the servants of Christ and of 
God; Rev. vii. 3 ; Lukexvii. 10; especially christian ministers. 
2 Tim. ii. 24. God, however, does not hold men as slaves, but 



NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINES RESPECTING SERVITUDE. 47 

as men, and subjects. He does not use them as property, but 
as free, moral agents, possessinf? inviolable rights. 

The New Testament instructions to children and parents, arc 
similar to those given to servants and masters, and stand in con. 
nection with them. 

Col. iii. 20, 21 : "Children, obey your parents in all things; 
for this is well pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not 
your children to anger, lest they be discouraged." 

Eph. vi. 1 — 4 : " Children, obey your parents in the Lord, 
for tliis is right. Honor thy flither and mother, which is the first 
commandment with promise ; tiiat it may be w(.'ll with thin-, and 
thou maycst live long on the earth ; and ye fathers, provoke not 
your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and ad- 
monition of the Lord." 

Both of these passages are followed by si»nilar instructions to 
masters and servants, which have been taken notice of in the 
foregoing pages. It is remarkable that in each case where the 
relations of children and servants are treated of consecutively, 
children and parents are mentioned first, and after them, servants 
and masters. 

The obligations of servants are not described as being any 
greater than those of children ; neither are the rights of mas- 
ters described as being greater than those of parents. 

It deserves also to be considered, that in the second table of 
the decalogue, that comprehensive summary of social duty, there 
is no recognition of servants, as a distinct class of pci'sons from 
children. 

They are there comprehended under the title of children, and 
required to exercise obedience to their masters i\s such. 

In the precept, "Honor thy father and tiiy mother," parents 
are used by a figure of speech, to represent superioi's generally, 
but particularly masters, as sustaining a relation analogous to 
that of parents. The parental relation is singled out from all 
others, as involving the highest obligations, and as therefore 
most fit to occupy the prominent position assigned it in tiie deca- 
logue. It comprehends the relation of masters, as the greater 
comprehends the less; just as the sixth commandment coinjuv- 
hends all inferior crimes against the persons, and the eighth, all 
minor offences against the j)ro[)erty of our fellow men. 

It is obvious that servants must be bound in duly to yield all 
that masters have a right to require. If, therciore, they ai-e not 
bound to yield more than children, more cannot justly be re<iui. 



48 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

red of them. That they are not, by the moral law, is manifest 
from the fact, that they are there comprehended under the title 
of children, and that the same law is given to them and to all 
others comprehended under this title. 

The Bible, therefore, places servants on the footing of chil- 
dren, and protects them as such. Does it consign ciiildren to 
oppression? Does it annihilate their rights as moral agents? 
Does it give them up to be held and disposed of by their parents 
like cattle ? Does it sanction the horrid systems of parental op- 
pression which have prevailed among the heathen ? By no means. 
Neither does it make a similar surrender of any other class of 
servants. 

The New Testament instructions to masters, apply to such as 
hold their servants in a different relation from that of slaves. 
There is nothing said of believing masters which implicates them 
in the prevailing sin of the times, in respect to slavery. 

The New Testament contains no recognition of the right of 
property in a fellow man ; no recognition of a right to subordinate 
the interests of a fellow man to our own. 

But it is sometimes asked, Why was not the New Testament 
made more explicit on this subject ? If slave-holding is wrong, 
why was it not condemned in express terms ? 

To these inquiries it may be answered : 

1. That the Scriptures are explicit and decisive in condemning 
slave-holding. They condemn it under the titles of injustice, 
oppression, unmercifulness, selfishness, covetousness, theft, rob- 
bery, evil-doing, inhumanity, &c. They could not condemn it 
under the title of servitude, for many modifications of servi- 
tude are both just and necessary. 

2. The laws of God in relation to this subject are sufficiently 
plain and intelligible for the direction of all candid, diligent, and 
earnest inquirers. The light which they shed is therefore suf- 
ficient. The fact that good men have fallen into errors in re- 
spect to the criminality of slavery, and that many are unsettled 
in their opinions on this subject, at the present time, does not 
prove the Scriptures to be inexplicit or indecisive in regard to 
it. Errors exist among good men, even in regard to the most 
important truths, and the most certain and fundamental principles 
of religion. A diversity of opinion among men, therefore, on 
the subject of slavery, does not prove that the Scriptures are de- 
fective in point of clearness in their condemnation of slave- 
holding. 



THE SLAVERY OF THE GREEKS AND ROMANS. 49 

3. Tlie Divine law in respect to slavery is left ver}' much as 
it is in respect to many otiier important subjects ; so as to re- 
quire critical and continual study in order fully to understand it. 
The reasons for this are the same as for a similar arrangement 
in otlier analogous cases. 



SECTION IV. 

THE SLAVERY OF THE GREEKS AND ROMANS. 

Among the Romans, persons who were taken as prisoners of 
war, were sold at public auction jnto perpetual servitude. Free- 
born citizens were not allowed, in ordinary cases, to sell them- 
selves or other frce-born persons, into this condition. They 
might, however, in some cases, sell their children. Criminals 
were often reduced to perpetual servitude, as a civil punishment. 
Their masters exercised over them an absolute authority, inso- 
much, that they might imprison, scourge, torture, or put them to 
death at pleasure. This authority was exercised with so much 
rigor and cruelty, in the latter pei iods of the Roman Empire, that 
laws were passed at several ditferent times restricting it. 

From the resemblance between the Roman system of perpet- 
ual servitude, and that of modern slavery, the former has gen- 
erally received the denomination of slavery. It is well entitled 
to this denomination. 

The Romans deprived their slaves of the rights of marriage ; 
of appearing as witnesses in civil courts ; of inheriting property 
or disposing of it by will ; and of serving, except in extraonlinary 
cases, in the army. 

Their masters assigned them a staled allowance of food for 
their support ; commonly four or five {)ecks of grain, and five 
denarii or small pieces of money, per month. Hesides this, they 
had a small daily allowance. What they saved of all that 
was allowed them, belojiged to themselves, and was used for 
their benefit. They often accumulated considerable [)rojK.'rty 
from this source, iio that those who were sober and industrious, 
generally became able to purcluise their liberty, after a period of 
six or seven years. 

6* 



60 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

There was a perpetual market for slaves at Rome, to which 
they were brought for sale, from distant countries. The Ro- 
mans being a martial people, and prosecuting warfare almost as 
a regular national business, were constantly obtaining supplies of 
this commodity for the market. Slaves were commonly ex- 
posed for sale naked, and had attached to their necks a scroll spe- 
cifying their good and bad qualities. They were generally war- 
ranted to answer the description thus given of them. Some- 
times purchasers took them on trial, and if not pleased with them, 
returned them within a limited time. 

The number of slaves owned in Rome and Italy, is represent- 
ed as having been very great. Some individuals possessed thou- 
sands of them. They were employed as domestic servants, and 
in the various mechanical, manufacturing, and agricultural pur- 
suits then prosecuted ; and to some extent, in the practice of the 
liberal arts. 

Laws existed in the Roman Empire, impeding the emancipa- 
tion of slaves. For a considerable period, masters were not al- 
lowed to liberate only a certain proportion of their slaves at any 
one time, or within a limited period. Severe civil disabiUties 
were imposed on such as were emancipated. 

The perpetual servitude of the Greeks was similar to that of 
the Romans, their slaves being equally the property of their mas- 
ters, and under the same absolute control by them. As a general 
rule, they were treated with great severity. Great pains was 
taken to keep them in a degraded condition, by withholding from 
them the means of intellectual improvement, governing them 
with the rod, and subjecting them to incessant labor. 

They were not allov/ed to imitate freemen in their dress or 
behavior. In many places they were required to dress in a pe- 
culiar manner, indicative of their abject condition. 

At Athens slaves were treated with more humanity than in 
most other parts of Greece. When their yoke became intoler- 
able they were allowed to take refuge in the temple of Theseus, 
and remain there till sold by public authority to another master. 
They were also allowed to institute suits at law against their 
masters, for undue severity in the infliction of punishments, and 
for attempts upon their chastity ; and if their complaints were 
sustained, were permitted to be sold to other masters. In addi- 
tion to this, they were allowed to hold property, on which they 
paid an annual tribute to their masters ; and whenever they ob- 
tained enough to purchase their liberty at a fair price, they were 



THE SLAVERY OF THE GREEKS AND ROMANS. 51 

entitled to the purchase of it, even contrary to the will of their 
masters. Those who performed any remarkable service for tlic 
state, generally obtained their liberty as a reward. 

When made free, slaves did not generally acquire an equal 
standing with others. They still continued in some degree de- 
pendent on their former masters, and looked to them as their 
civil guardians and protectors. 

The number of slaves in Attica, compared with that of free 
persons, was sometimes in the ratio of twenty to one. 

The Spartan slaves were subjected to a more cruel and de- 
grading servitude, than that of most other ancient states. Tiiey 
were not allowed either to be emancipated or removed from the 
country. They were kept in great ignorance, and at a great distimcc 
from their masters ; w^ere not allowed to learn or practice any 
liberal art ; were governed with great severity and brutal violence, 
and often inhumanly murdered. 

Both the Greek and Roman systems of slavery were perpet- 
ual and hereditary. 

They are declared by Blackstone, to be repugnant to reason 
and the principles of natural law. He shows that the tliree ori- 
gins of the right of slavery, as assigned by Justinian, are all of 
them built on false foundations. Men have not a right in time 
of war, to enslave their prisoners, or to injure them in any way, 
farther than the performance of positive duties to themselves or 
country may require. A man cannot sell himself into a state of 
slavery, because he cannot in that state receive an equivalent 
for his liberties and rights. Persons cannot righteously become 
slaves by birth; first, because that condition in the case of their 
parents, is not a suitable or righteous one ; secondly, because they 
are not the property of their parents, but independent beings, 
who can never be indebted to others except for benefits received. 
The child is indebted to its parents for the care and labor bestow- 
ed in bringing it up to years of strength and knowletlge, and for 
other benefits. But for nothing more. The payment of this 
debt may justly be exacted in such circumstances, and by sucii 
means, as are sanctioned by justice and benevolence. But by 
no others. The obligation, however, is chiefly one of kindness 
and benevolence. Love is the highest duty of the parent to 
the child, and the return of this affection is the iiighest duty of 
the child to the parent ; the latter is the natural and only proper 
equivalent for the former. 

The abolition of slavery in the Roman Empire, was eflcctcd 



52 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

by the gradually extending influence of the christian religion. 
Trajan, who died A. D. 117. after a reign of nineteen years, 
was the first Roman Emperor who took from masters the right 
of putting their slaves to death at discretion. The method of 
punishing them capitally, was generally by crucifixion. From 
the time of Trajan, this system of despotism gradually declined, 
till the extended prevalence of Christianity entirely destroyed it. 

The primitive christians, says Archbishop Potter, thought it 
not only sinful, but barbarous and unnatural, that persons pos- 
sessed of the same social, intellectual, and moral faculties as 
themselves, should be held as property, and treated hke brutes. 

Having brought to view the leading features of the Greek and 
Roman slavery, I come now directly to the question, What is the 
relation of the Scripture doctrines to these systems of servitude ? 

The examination of the doctrines of the Bible on this subject, 
in the preceding sections, may be referred to as furnishing a de- 
cisive answer to this question. Their relation to this oppressive 
and um-ighteous system of servitude, is that of direct and mani- 
fest opposition. They oppose it as an invasion of the rights of 
God, and also of man. They oppose it uniformly and decided. 
]y, in the following ways : 

1 . In requiring us to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we 
love our neighbor, we shall feel an interest in promoting his hap- 
piness. If we love him in a great degree, we shall feel a pro- 
portionably great interest in promoting his happiness. If we 
love him as we do ourselves, we shall take the same dehght in 
his happiness that we do in our own. Our love to our children, 
leads us cheerfully to accord to them all the rights and privi- 
leges of men, when they arrive at a proper age. If we love 
other children as much, it will prompt the same feeling in respect 
to them. 

But even if in a single case, we might be disposed to hold an 
individual in a state of slaver}', hke that of the Greeks and Ro- 
mans, for his benefit, it must be obvious, that well-informed love 
for this class of persons as a class, would dictate their release 
from this degraded condition, as on the whole highly desirable. 
Far more would be benefitted than injured by it, and the benefits 
would be far greater than the injuries. And if one individual 
cannot be held in a state of slavery, for his real benefit in some 
degree, without exposing another to be held in that state to his 
greater injury, or without exposing many to an equal amount of 
injury, then that system cannot have been lawful, by the Scrip- 



THE SLAVERY OF THE GREEKS AND ROMANS. 53 

tures, in any case. The principle of loving our neifjlibor as our- 
selves, was not the principle of Roman slavery. It is directly 
opposed to that institution, as one founded in selfishness. 

2. In making it our duty to do to others as we would that 
they in like circumstances should do to us. No law of the 
Scriptures is clearer, or of more manifest and binding force than 
this. This law does not allow one human being to tyrannize 
over another, on any pretext whatever. It is a legitimate de- 
duction from the law of love, and laid the axe at the root of Ro- 
man slavery, to cut it down as an incumbrance and injury to 
the world, 

3. In teaching the doctrine of the relation of all men to God, 
as his subjects and servants. Nothing is more manifest, than 
that God claims to be the master of all men, and holds them in 
the relation of subjects and servants, over whom he exerts un- 
limited authority. But no man can be the servant of two mas- 
ters, at the same time. If one man has a servant entirely un- 
der his authority, another cannot have the control of him, at the 
same time. So if all men are under the absolute authority of 
God, they cannot be under that of men. God must cease to 
have absolute authority over men, before it can be acquired by 
any other being. 

The principle, that no man can be the servant of two masters, 
is distinctly alluded to by Christ, as one that is of unquestionable 
authority. Matt. vi. 24. In 1 Cor. vii. 23, Paul assigns tho 
fact of our being redeemed by the blood of Christ, as a reason 
why we should not be the servants of men ; plainly intimating 
that the absolute servitude of those times came in collision with 
the obligations of men to God, as his servants. 

4. In directly sanctioning the obligations of justice and hu- 
manity. Rom. xii. 15 — 17; xiii. 7, 8; xiv. 'l7, 18; Deut. 
xxiv. 10—22; Luke x. 25—37. 

The fact that servitude was not expressly condemned by the 
apostles, and was tolerated to some extent in the churcli, is sup- 
posed by many to have given a Scriptural sanction to those 
forms of it which were oppressive. Tlie evidence that it was 
tolerated, seems to be conclusive ; believing masters arc distinct- 
ly referred to. But to what extent, and under what ri'strictions 
this toleration was afforded, we ai-e not informed, other than by 
the distinct prohibition of all unrighteousness. 

It is worthy of particular remark, that the inspired authors of 
the New Testament are in no case the apologists for the slavery 



54 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

of those times. They lisp not a syllable in justification of it. 
At the same time, they inculcate with the greatest force, those 
principles of benevolence and justice, of which the whole system 
of Roman slavery, considered theoretically and practically, was 
a manifest violation. Those who enslave their fellow men, 
are numbered by them with the worst of malefactors. From all 
that is written in the New Testament, we are authorized to infer, 
that considerable instruction, not recorded, must have been call- 
ed for and given by the inspired founders of the church, on the 
subject of slavery. What was the general character of those 
unrecorded instructions, in relation to this subject, we are left to 
infer, from what was written down and preserved, and from the 
fact, that the entire downfall of the ancient systems of slavery, 
was an achievement of Christianity. 

There is an important difference between the toleration of 
slavery and that of servitude. In condemning the Greek and 
Roman slavery, the Scriptures condemned that institution, and 
all the instances of oppression which it involved, but they did 
not condemn the holding of persons in a reasonable subjection, 
as servants, and on equitable terms. They divested men of au- 
thority, as slave-holders, but not as masters. 

On submitting to the authority of the Scriptures, every holder 
of slaves must have come under restrictions and obligations, in 
respect to his authority, as the master of servants, which would 
so far modify the character of the servitude he administered, as 
to be a virtual abolition of it. He must have held his servants, 
not as property, to be used for his exclusive benefit, but as the 
moral subjects of God, having interests and rights as dear and 
as sacred as his own. He must have consulted for the highest 
happiness and welfare of his servants, as truly and as faithfully 
as he did for that of himself and children. 

The Scriptures legislate for servants, as immortal and ac- 
countable beings, possessing all the natural rights, and entitled 
to all the privileges enjoyed by others, as far as they can righ- 
teously obtain those privileges. God is no respecter of persons. 
5. The opposition of the christian religion to slavery, as it ex- 
isted in the days of the apostles, may be still farther illustrated, 
by considering the dispositions and feelings which it excited in 
the bosoms of those who embraced it, as indicated by their con- 
duct. The disciples forsook all, gave up all earthly advantages 
and distinctions, and nearly all their possessions, to follow Christ, 
Matt. xix. 27. An unwillingness to do this, appears to have 



THE SLAVERY OF THE GREEKS AND ROMANS. 55 

been a fatal obstruction to the salvation of a rich young man, 
who went away sorrowful from one of the discourses of Christ, 
and who had supposed that he was already perfect, till tried by 
this test. Matt. xix. 22. 

The primitive christians immediately after the day of Pentecost, 
when they were greatly imbued with the Holy Spirit, "sold 
their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, as every man 
had need." Acts ii. 44, 45. 

Those who had practical arts inconsistent with Christianity, 
when they became christians, not only relinquished the j)ractice 
of those arts, but destroyed the implements for carrying on such 
practices, to an extent which involved the destruction of a large 
amount of property. Acts xix. 18 — 20. 

In accordance with the spirit of these examples, we are com- 
manded, " Love not the world, neither the things in the world. 
If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 
1 John ii. 15. "The friendship of the world is enmity with 
God. Whosoever, therefore, will be the friend of the world, is 
the enemy of God." James iv. 4. 

These examples and illustrations of the religion of Christ, re- 
quire a degree of benevolence which is inconsistent with the ex- 
ercise of oppression in any form, and in any degree certainly 
inconsistent with the unblushing and horrid enormities of ancient 
slaveiy, and with the system of personal servitude in which tiiey 
originated. 

The same conclusion is sustained by the levelling spirit of 
Christianity. Christians were baptized into one homogeneous 
body. 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13. Invidious distinctions were annihi- 
lated by the gospel. As many as were baptized into Christ hc- 
came the children and OovXoi, servants, not slaves, of God. There 
was neither Jew nor Greek, nor bond, nor free, amongst them. 
These and other distinctions of a similar nature, were merged 
in the comprehensive relations which they sustained as chris- 
tians. Gal. iii. 26—28. 

It is beautifully said by an apostle, " Let the brotlicr of low 
degree rejoice in that he is exalted, but the rich in that he is 
made low." James i. 9, 10. See also Jamas ii — v. entire, 
which contain a masterly exposition of the Scripture doctrines on 
this subject. 

0. The opposition of the Scripture doctrines to (Jivek and 
Roman slavery, is illustrated still farther, by the absurdity of the 
contrary supposition. 



56 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

That slavery was unjust in its origin. It deprived persons of 
tlieir liberties, on grounds which have been declared by the con- 
science and judgment of the civilized world, to be insufficient. It 
was administered in many cases, with barbarous cruelty. The sys- 
tem was, therefore,fundamentally erroneous and oppressive. Very 
few have undertaken to vindicate it in modern times. Similar 
injustice and oppression were frequently denounced as deeply 
criminal, both in the Old Testament and New. 

To maintain, therefore, that Greek and Roman slavery were 
not opposed to the doctrines of the Bible, is to make that bless- 
ed book inconsistent with reason and conscience, and with itself. 
Such a supposition, therefore, cannot be true. 

From the foregoing investigation, it appears that those who 
charge the Scriptures with countenancing the slavery of the an- 
cients, entertain views of them which are erroneous and deroga- 
tory to their character. The Scriptures are not liable to any 
such imputation, but are clear and unblemished in this matter, 
pleading the cause of the oppressed against the oppressor, and 
uttering the language of consistency, reason, and a holy religion. 

Those who justify modern slavery by the example of the 
ancient Greeks and Romans, build their confidence upon a worse 
than sandy foundation — upon a foundation of rottenness and de- 
filement. Roman slavery was smitten down by Christianity. 
The sword of the spirit caused that of the robber and conquer- 
or to be returned to its sheath, and proclaimed hberty to the en- 
slaved captive. 

The Bible proposes to revolutionize society, so far as its 
institutions have been corrupted by ambition, avarice, and other 
sinful passions, and to reconstruct it on principles of perfect and 
universal benevolence. This revolution is now in progress, and 
is destined to advance till unrighteousness shall cease, and there 
shall be none to hurt or destroy, in all God's holy mountain. 
In this reformation every good man has occasion to rejoice. It 
contributes to the relief and happiness of man, and tends to pro- 
mote the glory of God. The destruction which it accomplishes 
is that of sin and misery, and the interests which it promotes 
are those of humanity and religion. 



THE I^ATURE OF RIGHTEOUS SERVITUDE. 57 

SECTION V. 

THE NATURE OF RIGHTEOUS SERVITUDE. 

Men of every condition are the creatures of God, and the sub- 
jects of his government. Our relations to God are tlie primary 
relations of our condition. To his moral and physical govern- 
ment, we are bound to conform. Our interest and duty both 
require us to do so. God administers the goverr.ment of the 
universe according to fixed principles or rules, many of which 
are revealed in the course of human observation and experience, 
to our immediate perception and reason : others are revealed to 
our faith in the Scriptures. The rules by which God adminis- 
ters the government of his moral subjects, indicate at once the 
path of duty and interest to us. If we do that which pleases 
him, and with which his blessing is connected, we do well. If 
we do that which displeases him, and with which his curse is 
connected, we do evil. Good and evil, therefore, are qualities 
of human conduct, considered with reference to the constitution 
and government of the uuiverse by God. That which cone- 
sponds to the Divine adm m stration of blessings, is good ; that 
which calls forth the Divine administration of curses, is evil. 
God administers both good and evil, not in an arbitrary manner, 
but according to fixed rules, which may be understood and ob- 
served by all rational and moral beings. 

Every rational being receives his powers of moral agency 
from his Maker, and is accountable to him for the manner in 
which they are used. He finds himself placed in circumstances, 
impelling iiim to voluntary action, and finds conscMjuences of 
good or evil, resulting inevitably from every act he perlbrms. 

All the consequences of voluntary action are not immediate. 
None of them are limited to the brief space, during which the ac- 
tion producing them is performed. They extend into future 
time, into eternity. A creature of such responsibilities ought to 
be a creature of corresponding endowments. It would be un- 
just to lay such res[;oii.sibilities on a being incompetent to sus- 
tain them with advantage to himself, or at least, without injury. 
God accordingly lias endowed man with conscience, and rciison, 
and collateral faculties, which, if rij^htiy exercised and improved, 
conduct, infaUibly, to ha])piness. He has placed him under a 

G 



58 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

dispensation of mercy, giving him a chance for life, even after 
steps otherwise the most fatal and irretrievable, have been 
taken. 

Those modes of action with which God connects his blessing, 
are comprehended in his requirements. Those with which he 
connects his curse, are comprehended in his prohibitions. The 
former are right, the latter, wrong. God leads us by blessings, 
and urges us by curses, in every department of moral action. 

Servitude, in some of the existing modifications of that rela- 
tion, is undoubtedly agreeable to the Divine will. Like the mar- 
riage and filial relations, it is based on the universal principles 
and wants of human nature, and cannot be altogether dispensed 
with. 

Servants are often necessary to individuals. Individuals, as 
such, may need the assistance of a fellow man, in the capacity of 
a servant. They may be able to make ample compensation for 
the service they require, so that a man may promote his own 
highest interests, while he subserves those of him to whose ser- 
vice he is invited. This necessity is in some cases of a most 
imperious nature, constituting a demand for servitude, which 
cannot be altogether neglected and left unsupplied, without indi- 
cating an entire defect of that benevolence which God requires. 

Servants are often necessary as aids for the prosecution of 
business. The welfare of individuals, families, and of the world, 
requires the prosecution of various branches of industry. In- 
dividual labor may accomplish something towards the success- 
ful prosecution of these pursuits ; but it is not of itself sufficient 
for this purpose. 

Most branches of business can be carried on with greater 
economy and expedition, and consequently with greater advan- 
tage, both to the adventurer and the community, by the employ- 
ment of several hands, than by the unassisted industry of indi- 
viduals laboring for themselves. 

In several branches of business, and those of the highest con- 
sequence to the welfare of society, individual and unassisted in- 
dustry can do notliing. The accomplishment of all great works 
requires combined etfort, and combined effort requires the subor- 
dination of some to others. Combination and co-operation in 
business cannot be effected to such an extent as to meet the ur- 
gent demands of human want, without the adoption of a system 
of servitude, which puts authority into the hands of some, and 
makes obedience the duty of others. The yoke of this servitude 



THE NATURE OF RIGHTEOUS SERVITUDE. 59 

may be light. It may not be called by the name of servitude, 
but it necessarily involves the thinir. 

Servants are necessary to the family. The family is an insti- 
tution of God. It embraces, in its most perfect state, two per- 
sons united in the marriage relation, together with their children 
and servants. Children are not necessary to the existence of 
the family, though it is provided by God as an asylum for them, 
and is adapted, in a higii degree, to that purpose Families often 
have need of the assistance of persons in the capacity of ser- 
vants, which they can atford to compensate in such a manner as 
to be a full equivalent for the service rendered. This necessity 
is in many cases constant and perpetual. In other cases, it is 
only occasional. The demand for servants in the; family is of 
the most urgent character. , The wants and capacities of remu- 
neration possessed by some families, are })erpetual ; the wants of 
others, and other wants of the same at times, require only occa- 
sional supplies of service, and yet require these in the most ur- 
gent manner. 

This demand for service lays a natural basis for servitude ; 
and as it arises naturally out of the circumstances of mankind, 
as organized into families, it may be considered as being involv- 
ed in the Divine constitution of the family. 

In every species of servitude, the person served is invested 
with a certain degree of authority over the servant. The ends 
of servitude cannot be attained without it. This is true in the 
case where one individual serves another as an individual ; 
where a person serves another in the prosecution of some pur- 
suit of industry, merely for the purposes of business, and where 
a person serves a family as a domestic servant. It is also true 
of the service of the child, the apprentice, and of the subject of 
civil government. 

A state of servitude is necessarily one of subjection in some 
respects ; that is, so far as the service to be performed is con- 
cerned. In acting for another, we are under ohii gat ions to act 
in conformity with his will, as far as that does not hring us in 
collision with any other principles of duty. The obligation to 
act in conformity with the will of anoth(;r, is one of suhjcctioii, 
and that will which we are bound to respect, is invested with an- 
thority, co-extensive whh the obligation resting uj)on the ser- 
vant to act in conformity with it. 

Considered in respect to his authority, the person served is 
termed the master, of which the correlative term is servant. 



60 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

These terms, however, are not applied to designate the par- 
ties, in all cases, where an actual servitude exists, and where, in 
strictness of speech, they are applicable. A child, for example, 
is not usually denominated a servant, or a parent a master. 
Both are called by more specific, and consequently more appro- 
priate appellations. 

No system and no instance of servitude can be righteous, 
which is not founded in benevolence. No individual under the 
government of God, has a right to require the service of his fel- 
low men, for any other than benevolent objects. Benevolence is 
the law of God's moral government. Whatever falls short of 
this, or comes in collision with it, is wrong. No person has a 
right voluntarily to become a servant, except where the ends of 
benevolence will be best attained by this means. 

There is no equitable demand for servitude, except where 
more good can be done by means of it, than without. The 
good to be attained by servitude, respects, first, the interests of 
the person served ; secondly, those of the servant. The prima- 
ry object of servitude, is the promotion of the interests of the 
person served ; a secondary object of it is the promotion of 
those of the servant. 

Servitude may be right, when required by the interests of the 
person served, though not required by those of the servant ; also 
when required by those of the servant, though not by those of 
the master ; but it can never be right, when it sacrifices the 
greater interests of the servant, to the less important ones of the 
person served, or the greater interests of the master to those of 
the servant. 

All persons are bound to take care of themselves and others 
as far as they can consistently. They are often required to sa- 
crifice less important interests of their own, in order to secure or 
subserve the greater interests of others. But they are never re- 
quired to sacrifice greater interests of their own, to the less valu- 
able interests of others ; neither are others ever authorized by 
God to exact such sacrifices. Every interest of moral beings 
ought to be prosecuted and protected according to its absolute 
and relative importance. Any difTerent rule is a deviation from 
the law of God — a law both of Scripture and reason. 

^Eveiy rational being commences his existence under obliga- 
tions to serve God, as his only absolute Master. Matt, xxiii. 10 ; 
Eph. vi. 9. This obligation is supreme, and incapable of being 
annulled or superseded. The service of God comprehends the 



THE NATURE OF RIGHTEOUS SERVITUDE. 61 

observance of all those laws pertaining to the direction of our 
conduct as intelligent and moral beings, which are capable of 
being ascertained, either by revelallon, or evpcricnce and rea- 
son. The rewards of obedience in every particular iiist.-uice, 
are great and permanent ; greater than it is possible for men to 
bestow. No system and no instance of servitude can be riglit, 
which divests the servant of the power to serve God to the utmost 
extent of his abilities. Every such instance of servitude robs 
God of his due, and robs the servant of the invaluable rewards of 
obedience to God. For this robbery, no adequate restitution or 
compensation can possibly be made, either to God or the servant. 
Tlie highest wages, the bcstowment of the greatest earthly ad- 
vantages, are no proper equivalent for the loss of the eternal re- 
wards of a single instance of obedience to God. Persons, there- 
fore, cannot in any instance turn aside from serving God, in 
compliance with the wishes, or in submission to the authority of 
their fellow men, without incurring unspeakable and irreparable 
loss. As far as we can serve our fellow men in consistency 
with every part of the service we owe to God, we may and 
ought to serve them, but no farther. 

Neither individuals nor civil society can righteously require 
one human being to be placed under the absolute authority of 
another, or obliged to serve another to the neglect of any part 
of service which may be due from him to God. 

The right to serve God to the utmost extent of our voluntary 
powers, cannot be righteously taken from us, or surrendered by 
ourselves to others. It is not at our disposal, and cannot equi- 
tably become the property of our tellow men. We possess it 
by virtue of our endowments as rational beings, placed under 
the moral government of God. It is our highest privilege. \Ve 
may bargain it away, but God will not approve or ratify the bar- 
gain. While we exist, he will hold us accountable to iiimself as 
moral beings, subject to his righteous dominion, and bound to 
serve him at all hazards, and every possible expense. 

No engagement to serve our lellow men, can be valid any 
farther than such service is consistent with our obligations to 
God. In subordination to those obligations, we mav become 
the servants of men. We may engage in their service for a 
lonfTcr or shorter period, and be held under obligations to serve 
them. Obligations to serve our fellow men may originate witli- 
out any engagement of ours. In cases wheie such obligations 
manifestly exist, they may be enforced by the civil uuthonly. 



62 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

This is true in respect to children, a class of servants where the 
obligation is unquestionable ; also in respect to other classes of 
servants. The right to enforce obedience by reasonable meth- 
ods, does not depend upon an acknowledgment of obligations 
on the part of the servant, but upon the fact of the certain ex- 
istence of such obligations. The righteous authority of human 
masters must always be limited by that of God. They have 
no right to command what God forbids, or to forbid what he 
requires ; or by any means to prevent their fellow men, whatever 
may be their condition or circumstances in life, from performing 
any service which is manifestly due to their supreme and abso- 
lute Master in heaven. 

Even the limited right which one human being may have to 
the service of another, or to another in the capacity of a ser- 
vant, may be of considerable pecuniary value. This is some- 
times the case with apprentices and children, A master may 
have a considerable pecuniary interest in his apprentice, the 
parent in his child ; both being considered merely in the light of 
servants. This interest may, in some cases, be capable of an 
equitable transfer from one proprietor to another ; but never to 
the prejudice of the servants ; or at least not on any other prin- 
ciples than those of benevolence to all the parties concerned. 

Generally, the pecuniary interest which is possessed in a 
servant is untransferrable, except in peculiar circumstances, 
where the interests of both the parties require such a transfer, or 
at least are compatible with it. 

In eveiy instance and modification of servitude, there is some 
degree of subjection of the will of the servant to that of the 
person served, or master. This may vary from the least possi- 
ble, to the greatest allowable. The rights and obligations of mas- 
ter and servant correspond respectively to each other. A mas- 
ter cannot righteously exact any service which the servant is 
not bound to yield ; as far as he exercises his authority within 
the limit to which it is justly restricted, the servant is under ob- 
hgations to obey. 

The just extent of this authority is different, in different mod- 
ifications of servitude. In the case of children, especially in 
their earliest years, it is more extensive than in most other va- 
rieties of servitude. Servants are in all cases bound to practice 
a voluntary subjection to their masters, corresponding to the ex- 
tent of rightful authority which they possess. 

The existing systems and modifications of servitude ai'e de- 



THE NATURE OF RIGHTEOUS SERVITUDE. C3 

termined, partly by municipal laws, partly by contract or agree- 
ment, and partly by public sentiment, general usage, and the 
characters and dispositions of the parties concernetl. 

The proper end of municipal laws relating to servitude, is to 
promote the administration of justice to both parties, not to sub- 
serve the interests of one party at the expense of the other. 
As far as this end is impartially and faithfully prosecuted by legis- 
lators and jurists, their enactments and decisions arc really use- 
ful to men and agreeable to the v.ill of God ; no farther. Hu- 
man laws are not adapted to be really useful, any farther than 
they are dictated by impartial justice and benevolence. 

Unjust laws are not a proper rule of conduct for moral beings, 
under the government of a righteous God. They come in col- 
lision with the laws of God, and are, therefore, null and void, like 
municipal statutes which contravene constitutional provisions in 
the excellent civil polity of the United States. The enactment 
of unjust laws is itself a wrong. The enforcement of them is 
another wrong. 

The same remark may be made in respect to general usage. 
As far as it is founded in justice and benevolence, and is conform- 
able to the known will of God, it is right, and ought to have the 
force of law in determining the different modes of servitude, as 
well as in other things. General usage, however, is not a sufti- 
cient reason for doing wrong. It does not justify covetousness, 
or ambition, or selfishness, or any of their bitter fruits. 

From the foregoing reinarks, it ajjpears that servitude, in all its 
varieties, ought to be founded in a benevolent regard for all the 
interests of both the parties concerned, and for those of the 
world ; not for those of either of the parties exclusively ; and 
that no service can justly be exacted by a master, which the ser- 
vant is not bound to render, by principles of benevolence and 
charity; or else by those of justice. 

It also appears that no system or mode of servitude can be 
right, which sacrifices the greater interests of one party, to the 
inferior interests of the other. The consent of the injured party 
does not sanctify injury, or make it right, llujuan law and cus- 
tom do not make it right. 

Human authority, when extended to the utmost limit.s which 
righteousness allows, cannot in the case of any human l)eing, 
invade the right of worshiping God, according to the dictates 
of revelation and reason, and that of performing every religious 
and moral duty which God reciuires. 



64 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

The right to serve God cannot be sold by the subject of it; 
because, we have no reason to believe that God will ratify such a 
sale, or acknowledge it as valid ; but the contrary ; and because 
it is not possible to receive an equivalent for it from our fellow 
men, or from any created beings. Masters, therefore, cannot 
acquire a righteous authority over their servants, within the ex- 
tended limits of religious and moral duty, which shall empower 
them to countermand or suspend anv of the requirements of 
God. 

Even the limited authority which is capable of being acquired 
over men as servants, may not be usurped. No person has a 
right to claim and exercise it, unless it is justly acquired ; unless 
it is demanded by circumstances which constitute an unequivo- 
cal indication of the will of God, and consequently, of our duty 
as his subjects. 

An equivalent for services exacted, however ample, does not 
justify such exaction contrary to the will of God. Every hu- 
man being, considered with respect to his fellow creatures, both 
human and superhuman, is, under God, the original proprietor of 
his own voluntary powers. At the time of his creation, the ca- 
pacities he receives are all his own. His title to them is entirely 
disencumbered, and perfectly unquestionable. He is bound from 
the first moment of intelligent and rational agencv, to exercise 
his faculties according to the dictates of justice and benevolence. 
Whatever righteous authority to control his voluntary action 
may be acquired by others, must emanate from himself, or be 
conferred by his Creator. 

Men are required to serve their fellow men only in the capa- 
city of free moral agents, not in that of involuntary beings or of 
brutes. Any authority which is not suited to men in this char- 
acter, and which does not recognize their inalienable, as well as 
alienable rights of voluntary and moral agency, is, of course, 
not right. It is a violation of the order of the universe, as es- 
tablished by God, and tends to certain and extensive injury. 

There cannot be any such thing as an equitable absolute ser- 
vitude to man ; certainly not to sinful man. All human author- 
ity is, in justice, limited by that of God. Limitations from this 
high source, surround and hem it in on every side. 

No human being, in any relation, has righteous authority to 
require what is sinful, or to exact a criminal service of his fellow 
being. All such exactions are an invasion of the rights of God, 
who forbids sin, and of the rights of man, as a servant of God, 



THE DIFFEREXT KLNDS OF SERVITI'DE. O.j 

to whom sin is a source of great and permanent disadvantage, 
for which no adequate recompense can possibly be received. 



SECTION VI. 

THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF SERVITUDE. 

Servitude lias been described in the previous section, as ad- 
mitting of numberless varieties. Its actual varieties are almost 
as numeious as its possible ones. Yet there are some general 
modifications of it, a review of which will answer most |)urpo- 
ses of instruction and illustration, and which I now propose briefly 
to describe*. The following are obviously of this kind : 

1. The servitude of children. 

2. That of apprentices. 

3. That of family or domestic servants. 

4. That of occasional and transient servants. 

5. That of agents, factors, &c. 

6. That of professional persons. 

7. That of the subjects of civil government. 

8. That of slaves. 

1. The servitude of children to tlieir parents or guardians. 
Children commence their existence in a stat(3 of entire depend- 
ence on parental care. That care is provided by the strong im- 
pulse of parental affection wherever the institution of marriage 
is duly maintained and respected. Parents ['ii(n\, clothe, and pro- 
tect their children, not for i)urpose of gain, not for pay, but 
from motives of atiection. In the first instance, tlieir labor in 
behalf of the child commences unsolicited, though not unrecpnr- 
ed. An immortal being is committed to their care by a dispen- 
sation of Divine providence. It is committed to tlie care of 
particular parents, not cast upon the charity or justice ev«'n, of 
a large community. The natural relation of the j)arents to the 
child, devolves upon them, in preference to all others, the duty of 
taking care of it. The prospect of compensation for their pres- 
ent labors and solicitudes, by the future services of the child, is 
no part of the basis of parental obligation. 

That obligation is as perfect when the child lias no prospect 



66 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

of surviving the period of infancy, and of course none of per- 
forming any services by way of compensation for those previ- 
ously received, as in any other case. It is founded solely on the 
relation of the parents to the child, as its parents, as under God 
the authors of its existence. By introducing a rational being 
to this world they incur an obligation to take care of it as long 
and as far as their care may be necessary, on the same principle 
that they take care of themselves. The parental obligation, 
therefore, is purely one of benevolence, and corresponds per- 
fectly with the divine law. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy- 
self. The parent is bound to love and do by his child as by 
himself. He does not charge the property he consumes, to him- 
self, and withhold it in cases when he has no reason to believe 
it will be returned or reproduced ; but uses it for the satisfaction 
of his wants as the end for which it was acquired. So he is re- 
quired to do in respect to his child. 

The authority of parents over their children is not founded in 
the convenience or necessities of the former, but solely in the 
necessities of the latter. The duty of exercising parental au- 
thority, is like that of exercising parental care in other respects, 
one of manifest necessity on the part of the child. The child's 
need of parental government is as obvious as his need of pa- 
rental care in respect to food and clothing. The object of pa- 
rental government is chiefly the good of the child. 

The parent's right to the services of the child grows out of 
his obligations of service to him. While he is bound to perform 
for the child the highest services in his power, and those which 
are designed to be of incalculable value, he is entitled in justice 
to obtain by the services of the child, what compensation he can, 
consistently with its best interests. 

The parent may not exact from his child a compensation in 
service or other property, for all the benefits he may bestow. 
He may not deal out his benefits in the ratio of the compensa- 
tion he expects to receive, withholding those which he fears will 
be unrecompensed. He is bound to do by his child as well as 
he may be able, during the whole period that parental care is 
needed ; and at the close of that period, to allow him to prose- 
cute his own interests in whatever reasonable and honest 
methods he may chose. When a child ceases to need parental 
care and oversight, he is entitled to his liberty. It is a matter 
of no small difficulty to determine the precise limits of the pe- 
riod during which parental oversight is necessary to each indi- 



THE DIFFERENT KINDS OP SEBVITUDE. 07 

vldual. To leave this matter entirely to.the discretion of parents, 
would evidently be improper. And yet they very properly, 
and almost necessarily, have considerable discretionary power in 
relation to this subject. 

The legal authority of a father over his children, ceases at 
the age of twenty-one, when they are supposed to be ca[)able of 
taking care of themselves. Till tiiat aj^e, a father is the master 
of his children, and holds them under his authoritv as servants ; 
not for his benefit, but for theirs. The age fixed 'by law Ibr tlie 
termination of this servitude, has received tiic sanction of the 
most enlightened and liberal minds. It might be better for some 
to attain their liberty earlier than the period assigned by law, and 
many virtually attain it earlier, with advantage to themselves. 
But the period of the enfranchisement of childn^n, now legally 
settled, and generally acquiesced in, could not probably be altered 
for the better, by laws either hastening or deferring it. 

The obligation of filial obedience during the period of child- 
hood, is based on the relation of the child to its parents, consid- 
ered as constituting them its natural guardians and masters, and 
on the fact that its own weakness, inexperience, and ignorance, 
render subjection to the authority of more experir^nced and intel- 
ligent directors, highly necessary. This natural obligation is 
confirmed by express revelation, in the strongest terms. Ex. 
XX. 12. 

Children, therefore, are the natural servants of their parents 
during their minority, agreeably to an obvious arrangement of 
God. This servitude is founded in the necessities of children. 
It is necessary, in order to their being properly taken care of, 
and on that ground as well as others, may be safely and confi- 
dently inferred to be according to the Divine will. Parents, 
therefore, have a Divine warrant to hold their children in a state 
of servitude for a limited period, \i\ order to take proper care of 
them, and fit them, as far as possible, lor the greater liberty and 
more arduous duties of mature years. 

Parental authority and oversight are recognized and sustained 
both by law and general usage. Every possible facility for im- 
provement is afTorded to the child, by way of the establishment 
of schools and colleges, the appropriation of money for tuition, 
&c. A scheme on the part of any number of parc>nts to retain 
their children in perpetual servitude, and arrangements to keep 
those children in ignorance, to deprive them of the advantages of 
a common education, in order that they might be made less un- 



68 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

willing and obstinate victims of such a system of oppression, 
would excite universal indignation. It would be regarded as a 
scheme of almost unparalleled wickedness and inhumanity. 
Such a conspiracy against the liberties of a single child, even 
though that child were an orphan, and thrown by ac- ident into 
the hands of his father's creditor as his guardian, would excite 
universal indignation, as an unprovoked, and selfish, and sordid 
infraction of the rights of an immortal being, whom God has re- 
quired us to love and serve. 

The laws and usages of differeht countries have invested pa- 
rents with different degrees of authority over their children. In 
our own country, children are protected by law in the enjoy- 
ment of a reasonable amount of hberty, and their interests are 
carefully looked after and secured. No legal impediments pre- 
vent parents from giving full scope to their feelings of benevo- 
lence, and doing tlie best for their children they possibly can. 

The child leels that in serving his parents during the period 
assigned for that purpose, he is only repaying in part, and gen- 
erally but in part, tlie debt he owes them for services received. 
The authority of parents is limited by the laws of God, both nat- 
ural and revealed. Beyond those hmits it cannot be rightfully 
extended either by legislative authority or general usage. 

2. The servitude of apprentices. 

Apprentices are persons who are bound to service for a hmit- 
ed time, with a view to learn some particular art or occupation. 
The master becomes obligated by the terms of the apprentice- 
ship, to afford the apprentice an opportunity of making himself 
acquainted with the business in question, and of acquiring suffi- 
cient ability and skill for the successful prosecution of it. He 
also assumes the responsibility of providing for the maintenance 
of the apprentice during the time of service. For these benefits, 
to wit, instruction in the theory and practice of some trade or 
calling, and support during tlie time within which the instruc- 
tion is to be given, the apprentice becomes obligated to serve his 
master in the exercise of his industry and skill. He is bound to 
be dutiful and obedient to all reasonable commands and require- 
ments. Such requirements as are manifestly unreasonable and 
wrong, he is at liberty to disobey. No commands or solicitations 
of his master, can make it his duty to involve himself in crime, 
either against the laws of God or man. 

The servitude of apprentices is limited by contract, and va- 
ries from six jnonths to seven years. It may be terminated pre- 



THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF SERVITUDE. ()1) 

vious to the time stipulated, at tlie request of citlicr of the parties, 
by a civil process, if it appears lliat there is sutliciciit ground for 
tliat request. Parents and guardians cannot bind out their chil- 
dren and wards a.s apprentices beyond the period of their lx;com- 
ing of age. Persons wiio are of age may obligate themselves 
to serve in the capacity of apprentices for any reasonable length 
of time. Apprentices, like children, are protected by law, in the 
enjoyment of a reasonable amount of liberty, during the period 
of their apprenticeship, also from personal injury and abuse. 

The autliority of the master, and the subjection of the appren- 
tice, are founded in benevolence and justice. They are necessa- 
ry to the attainment of the important benefits whicli result to liie 
parties concerned, and to society, from this source. 

3. TIic servitude of domestic servants. 

Domestic servants are those who arc employed in the families 
of their masters, for the purpose of assisting in the care or busi- 
ness of the family. They become servants by being hired for 
that purpose. This servitude may be modified within any n.-a- 
sonable limits, by the terms of the argrecment. Tiic; law which 
regulates it is principally that of general usage and natural justice. 

The domestic servant does not resign to his niLvster his entire 
powers of moral agency ; he docs not obligate himself to prac- 
tice unqualified submission to his master's will. He only con- 
cedes the authority to direct and control his actions within cer- 
tain limits, either specified in the contract, or determined by law 
and general usage. Within tliese limits he virtually promises 
due submission and obedience, and is bound to fulfil his engage- 
ment with promptness and fidelity. Beyond the limits assigned 
to the master's jurisdiction, obedience on the part of the servant 
is not required. 

The institution of domestic servitude is of indispensable ncces. 
sity. The demand for domestic servants is imperious, and can- 
not be set aside without overturning the whole fabric of society. 
The supply of this demand is also amply [jrovided, ami the ap- 
propriation of this supply may take place on principles which 
are equally just and benevolent. The servant employs his in- 
dustry and skill under the direction, and for the benefit of liis 
employer, and receives an equitable compensation for the same. 
In being at liberty to pursue this or any other mode of life for 
which he is (lualified, as he can best suhserve his iiitcrrsts, the 
price of service naturally regulates itself according to liie princi- 
ples of justice and benevolence. 



70 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

As a general rule, every person ought to pursue that mode of 
life in which he can do best for himself and others. Other things 
being equal, the profitable departments of industry ought to be 
prosecuted in preference to those which are unprofitable ; and 
the more profitable, in preference to those which are less so. 
By acting universally on this principle, the greatest amount of 
wealth is produced, and the greatest amount of happiness secured. 

4. The servitude of occasional or transient servants. 
Domestic servants are employed by the month or year ; occa- 
sional servants, by the day or week. 

The necessities of mankind create a demand for some ser- 
vants of this class. Their subjection to their employers and 
masters, for the time of service, may be as great as that of do- 
mestic servants or apprentices. In many cases, however, it is 
far less, though conformable to the same principles. As far as 
they engage in the service of their fellow men, they are bound 
to act according to the reasonable wishes of their employers. 

5. TJie servitude of agents^ factors, &c. 

An agent or factor is one entrusted with the business of anoth- 
er. The business committed to a man as an agent, to be per- 
formed in behalf of another, is termed his agency. 

An agent is a servant to the person or persons in behalf of 
whom he assumes an agency, so far as the agency which he as- 
sumes is concerned, but no farther. The terms of an agency 
are such as the principals see fit to establish. If they involve a 
criminal subjection to the will of the principal, they ought not to 
be accepted by any one. If the business proposed to persons 
as agents, is lawful and right, and the terms reasonable, it may 
be undertaken ; and in such cases the agent is bound to comply 
with the terms of his agency, and to transact the business com- 
mitted to him, according to the instructions received. The 
terms may be more or less definite, and the instructions more or 
less explicit, according to the nature of the business and other 
circumstances. Agents may be of two classes, temporary and 
occasional, or permanent. 

In some cases their subjection to the will of their employers is 
very slight, having reference only to the thing to be done, while 
in respect to the mode and time of doing it, they are left entirely, 
or almost entirely, to their own discretion. In other cases the 
subjection of the agent to his employer is as great as that of 
any class of servants can justly be. Persons are responsible for 



THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF SERVITUDE. 71 

the conduct of their agents, within the hmits prescribed by the 
terms of their agency. 

6. The servitude of professional men ; of artists^ inecJianics^ 
tradesmen^ &c. 

These different classes of persons engage more or less in the 
service of their fellow men, and become obligated to tliem in the 
capacity of servants. Physicians and surgeons serve tlieir fel- 
low men as physicians and surgeons; ministers of tlie gospel, 
as ministers of the gospel ; artists of various kinds, as artists, &c. 
The terms of professional servitude are determined partly by 
law and general usage, and partly by contract. This species 
of servitude is analogous to that of agents. 

The professional servant is as truly a servant as the subject, 
the domestic, or the child. When he consents to use his pro- 
fessional skill for the benefit of an employer, he is bound to do it 
in subjection to the reasonable will of that employer, and in sub- 
servience to his true interests. The employer stands in the rela- 
tion of the person served, the professional man, &c., in that of 
the servant, to be governed in the service he performs, by sub- 
stantially the same principles as other servants. 

By actual service, all the classes of servants above described, 
with the exception of children and apprentices, become legally 
entitled to wages. Children and apprentices are not entitled to 
wages, on the ground of having performed service for their pa- 
rents and masters, because the support, instruction, and experi- 
ence, which they acquire in these states of servitude, are suppo- 
sed to be an equivalent for their services. The principle that the 
laborer is worthy of his hire, and that of benevolence to both the 
parties, lies at the foundation of all these modes of servitude, it 
applies equally to the servitude of children, apj)rentices, domes- 
tic servants, occasional servants, agents, professional men, ar- 
tists, &c. The services of all are required for benevolent pur- 
poses, and they are considered as having a just claim for the true 
value of their services. 

The value of service is determined by circumstances. It is 
sometimes greater and sometimes less. Whatever it is worth, 
the servant is entitled to receive for it. In this respect, industry 
and skill stand on an equal footing with any other merchantable 
commodity. It is the property of the laborer. He nuiy e.\i)end 
it for himself, or exchange it for other commodities, as he judges 
best. He ought, in the disposal of it, to be governed by the 
same principles as in disposing of other property. 



72 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

The just value of service, like that of other commodities, h 
what it will bring in an open market. It is not a matter of arbi- 
trary appointment, either by servants or their employers. The 
former would be likely to estimate it too high, if its value was to 
be determined entirely by them, and the latter too low. Where 
liberty is left unrestrained, and every person may pursue that 
branch of industry and skill, in which he supposes he has fairest 
hope of success, and from which he has a prospect of reaping the 
greatest advantages, the wages of servants will naturally regulate 
itself. It will be precisely what it ought to be ; no more and no 
less. Any legislative interference for the purpose of regulating 
the wages of servants, would be as unjust as it would for that of 
regulating the price of grain, cattle, or any other article of 
property. 

The different kind^ of servitude above described, are recogni- 
zed and sanctioned by the laws of most civilized nations, and are 
thus incorporated into the civil institutions of mankind. They 
are not, however, merely the creature of human laws, but rather 
of human necessities. Laws sanction and sustain, but do not 
originate them. Their existence in the modifications specified, 
is coeval with that of society in any improved form. They can- 
not be abolished. The abolition of them would involve the de- 
struction of society itself. They would exist, from the necessi- 
ties and wants both of servants and masters, though all human 
enactments sustaining them should be repealed. 

The object of legislation in respect to them, is to define them 
and the duties they impose on both the parties concerned, and to 
make provision for the enforcement of those duties, and the pro- 
tection of each of the parties in the enjoyment of their respective 
rights. This is the general purpose and design of human laws. 
It is to protect persons in the enjoyment of natural rights, and to 
enforce the discharge of duties which would be obligatory, by 
virtue of the constitution of the human mind, and the arrange- 
ments of Divine providence, had human laws never been enacted. 

7. The servitude of the suhjecis of civil government. 

Civil government is an institution of the greatest importance 
to the welfare of men. It is, therefore, of God ; and civil obedi- 
ence is a duty which has the sanction both of reason and revela- 
tion. Rom. xiii. 1 — 7; 1 Pet. ii. 13 — 18. Civil government 
implies civil subjection, and requires that authority should be 
vested somewhere and in some persons, for the control of its sub- 
jects. That, like all other authority delegated to men, is limited 



THE DIFFERENT KLNDS OF SERVITUDE. i 3 

by the known laws of God, the principles of benevolence and 
justice. Within those limits it ought to bo implicitly ubeyed. 
The obedience of tiie subject to the civil authority, is as njuch a 
duty, as that of children to their parents, or as any other of the 
obligations of benevolence. 

Tlie use of civil government by those in power, for purposes 
of seltishness and injustice, is a perversion of it, which is deeply 
criminal. Where such perversions occur, those oppressed by 
them have a right to use all reasonable and proper means to ob- 
tain redress, as injured persons, and to turn back the slieam of 
civil authority into its appropriate and healthful channels. Volun- 
tary submission to injustice, from the exercise of civil authority, 
is not a duiy. Neither is it a duty to look with inditlcrenco 
upon the civil oppressions of others. Relief from injustice of 
every kind, is an appropriate object of pursuit, botli in our own 
cases, and in those of others. 

Obedience to a reasonable and equitable civil authority, is 
compensated by ample rewards. This servitude, therefore, un- 
der proper regulations, is an amply compensated one, and like 
that of children, is founded in reason and justice. The sanction 
which it borrows from revelation, is the sanction of justice, and 
nothing more ; certainly nothing contrary to this. 
8. Slavery^ or the servitude of slaves. 

Slavery is a species of servitude in which the servant is under 
the absolute control of his master, and subject to his disposal as 
a personal chattel, or personal property. 

" A slave," says the slave-law of South Carolina, "is a chattel 
personal in the hands of a master or possessor, to all intents and 
purposes whatsoever." 

The municipal law of another slave -holding state, describes a 
slave as one '• who is in the power of a master, to whom he be- 
longs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person mid his 
industry. The slave can do nothing, possess nothing, and ac 
quire nothing but what belongs to his master." 

These delinitious apply to slaves generally. They distinguish 
this class of human beings from all others, by a line of dcniarka- 
tion that need not be nnstaken. They may be employed in la- 
bors and pursuits appropriate only to human beings, but ihey are 
held by the same tenure as brutes, or inanimate objects ; nanic-^ 
ly, as property. The slave is a servant. His state is one ol 
subjection to a master. But liis servitude dilFers from that of every 

7* 



74 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

Other class of servants known to the world, by its degrading as- 
similation to the servitude of b: tites. 

Attempts have frequently been made to identify slavery with 
some other and equitable modifications of servitude. It has 
been asserted to be the same in principle as subjection to civil 
government, to parental authority, and to employers in the ca- 
pacity of hired servants. 

Civil government, parental authority, and that exercised over 
men as hired servants, may be perverted and degraded into sys- 
tems of injustice and tyrannical oppression. In that case, they 
may be assimilated to slavery so far as to leave no important or 
perceptible distinction in principle between them. But in their 
unperverted state, the difference between them and slavery is too 
obvious to be unobserved, or unappreciated by the most careless 
eye. 

All men who are at all acquainted with the subject, whatever 
theoretical notions they may hold and promulgate respecting it, 
make a great practical distinction between slavery and the other 
modifications of servitude. None regard it as an eligible con- 
dition either for themselves or children. They may contend for 
it as very suitable and useful for the children of the slaves, but 
they W'Ould in most cases prefer to follow their own children to 
an early grave, rather than see them consigned to the dominion 
of slave-holders, as chattels personal. 

Slavery differs essentially from the other kinds of servitude 
described in this section, in the following particulars : 

1. It is founded in a regard chiefly if noi solely, to the inter- 
ests of the master, and not in a common and due regard for 
those of both the parties concerned. The servitude of children, 
apprentices, &c., is instituted for the benefit of the servant as 
truly as for that of the master. The object of other servitudes 
is to secure cer^ ain benefits to one of the parties, for which com- 
pensation is made tv> the other, either in service or wages, or in- 
struction and support. But the chief end of slavery is the ben- 
efit of the master. As far as the interests of the slave can be 
secured in subordination to those of the master, they are, to 
some extent, provided for. But no farther. No sacrifice of the 
interests of the slave, whether for time or eternity, is too great 
to be made, when the interests of the master require it. Such 
is the theoiy of slavery, and the practice is generally in dread- 
ful agreement with it. 

2. Slavery invests the master with a greater degree of author- 



IS SLAVERY WRONG ? 75 

ity, than any other modification of tlie institution of servitude. 
The first peculiarity noticed relates solely to the |)rinci|)le on 
which this investment of authority is made. That which is now 
suggested, relates to the amount of it invested. The restriction 
of the authority of slave-holders, within the same limits its ob- 
tains in respect to parents, the masters of apprentices, of do- 
mestic hired servants, &c., would prove fatal to the institution of 
slavery. It would be a virtual abolition of it. 

3. It is artificial and unnatural. Other kinds of servitude are 
natural and necessary. They do not borrow their existence 
from legislative enactments, but result from the necessities and 
wants of mankind. Slavery is entirely a creature of humun 
laws. Laws are necessary to its institution and establishment, 
and the moment they are repealed, it ceases to exist. So far 
from being necessary to the great interests of society, slavery is 
an invasion and sacrifice of them. It sacrifices many of the 
liighest and dearest interests of the slave, to the supposed tem- 
poral but less important interests of the master. 

Slavery has been substantially the same in all ages in which it 
has existed, and in all countries. It has always been character- 
ized by selfishness, tyrranical authority, and a sacrifice of the 
highest and dearest interests of the enslaved, to the less impor- 
tant interests, and often to the caprice of their masters. Such 
was the character of this institution among the Greeks and Ro- 
mans ; and it is such still, amid all the improvements of Christi- 
anity and of modern times. The greatest restraint upon the 
authority of slave-holders in this country, is not that of municip- 
al law, jealous for the rights of the servant, but that of public 
opinion, an opinion which lends its sanction to the invasion of 
the dearest ric^hts of rational and social beings. Such restraint 
must of course be very inadequate to the wants of the slave, 
and the ends of justice. 



SECTION VII. 

IS SLAVERY WRONG ? 



This question has been supposed by many to Ix^ too plain to 
|uirc discussion. Public opinion and the public conscience, 



76 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

have given theii* decision in the affirmative, under circumstances 
which seem almost to preclude the possibility of error. The best 
of men, in their best frames of mind, with no interest to bias their 
judgment, and in great numbers, have participated in the con- 
demnation of slavery, and that in the most earnest and unquali- 
fied manner. In multitudes of cases, tliis opinion has been form- 
ed as the result of extensive and accurate information, both in 
respect to slavery and the subject of morals generally. 

Some, however, have not acquiesced in this condemnatory 
judgment ; and many who profess to acquiesce in it, do not sub- 
scribe to it in full. Many suppose the existing modifications of 
slaveiy to be wrong in some, or even in many respects, and to 
be hable to some abuses, who do not unite in the condemnation 
of the institution as wrong in itself. Some too, who profess to 
regard slavery as wrong in itself, however modified and adminis- 
tered, understand imperfectly the statement of their professed 
sentiments, and reject and oppose the inevitable consequences to 
which those sentiments lead, and which they involve. 

There are not a few in this country who advocate the institu- 
tion of slavery, as nearly or perfectly right ; as agreeable to the 
laws of God and to the dictates of reason and experience. Per- 
sons of this class are found in the Southern churches and minis- 
try. They do not regard men as criminal for holding their breth- 
ren as property, for buying, selling, and using them in other re- 
spects as slaves, but only for exercising their authority with rigor 
and cruelty. 

If compelled to admit the unrighteousness of slavery as it is 
generally administered, they contend for it as administered in 
some cases, and if unable to vindicate it as it is really is, they 
still advocate it, as in their opinion it might be. 

This diversity of sentiment respecting the moral character of 
slavery, creates a demand for diligent inquiry and thorough in- 
vestigation. The interests involved are of the most vital and 
permanent character. An investigation, therefore, the design of 
which is to determine the true relation of slavery to those mter- 
ests, ougat to be entered upon, by all whose minds are yet in 
any degree unsettled, or whose opinions have been formed on 
superficial and slight grounds, and ought to be prosecuted with 
diligence and candor, and with earnest prayer to God, for the 
enlightening influences of that Spirit, whose office it is to lead 
every humble inquirer into all important moral truth. 



IS SLAVERY WRONG ? 77 

The question whether slaven' is wrong or not, may be rcsol- 
ved into the two following : 

1. Is the institution oi" slavery wrong? 

2. Is it wrong to sustain and exercise the office of slave-holder 
under that institution as established in slave-holding states ? 

1. Is the institution of slavery icroug ? 

The institution of slavery consists in those laws and gen- 
eral usages or customs, which determine the character of this 
modification of servitude, where it is supported by law. As an 
institution, it may be compared to that of filial subjection, or the 
servitude of children ; to that of aj)prentices ; and to that of 
civil government ; but it is specifically different from any exist, 
ing varieties of either. Though different from every other 
institution of society, it is capable of being greatly motlified, 
and exists under different modifications, in different slave-holding 
states. 

In determining the character of the institution of slavery, it 
will conduce to clearness of apprehension, to consider it first, as 
it is, and secondly, as it might be ; or as it may reasonably bo 
supposed possible to constitute and restrict it. 

(1.) The institution of slavery is wrong, considered as it is, 
or as it actually exists in different states and territories. 

It authorizes manifest injustice and cruelty, and deprives the 
rational creatures and subjects of God, of rights and privileges 
which belong to tnem as rational and moral beings. It inter- 
feres, therefore, with the d ities which men owe to themselves, 
and to each other as men, and with those which they owe to God 
as his subjects. This interference is generally acknowledged, 
by reasonable and pious men of all parties. Consequently, they 
have founded their apologies for it in most cases, ratlier on 
their opinions as to what it ought to be, than on the facts demon- 
strating what it is. 

Charges of injustice are sustained against the existing modi- 
fications of slavery, in respect to the following j)arliculars : 

They divest the'ser\ ant of his rights as a moral being, and do- 
grade him to a thing, a personal chattel, or an article of personal 
property in the hands of a possessor and master ; and this, for 
no crime of his, but merely for the real or sujiposed benefit and 
convenience of the master. They deny the slave the benefit 
and protection of those laws which are enjoyed by all other 
classes of persons, and which are justly regarded jis of inestima- 
ble value; and cast liim upon the mercy of an irresponsible 



78 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

master, with no adequate power to maintain his dearest and 
most sacred rights as a rational and moral being. They deprive 
him of the right to seek his happiness by all such honest and rea- 
sonable means as he may choose ; compel him to labor at such 
employments as his master may see fit to appoint ; and that, 
without putting it in his power to obtain a fair compensation 
for tlie same. They deprive him of the advantages of a com- 
mon and Hberal education, thus dooming him to perpetual igno- 
rance and imbecility ; and take from him the institution of mar- 
riage, and the power to educate his children for happiness in this 
hfe and that to come. All these injuries are inflicted by the in- 
stitution of slavery, in all its existing varieties. This institution, 
as it exists, therefore, is manifestly wrong. It is a violation of 
the most unquestionable principles of justice and benevolence. 

(2.) No modification of slavery can make it right, which does 
not amount to a formal or virtual abolition of it. 

Let us suppose a thorough reform of this institution to be 
prosecuted, till nothing wrong should be left. What would be re- 
moved 1 And what would remain ? The marriage relation would 
be restored to its integrity, the laborer entitled to a compensation 
equal to the value of his labor, the rights of personal liberty, of 
property, and of conscience, all acknowledged ; laws prohibiting 
instruction repealed, arrangements for extending the advantages 
of common and liberal education as widely as possible, adopted 
and prosecuted with vigor, and parents, the natural guardians and 
masters of their children, designated to this office by the provi- 
dence of God, allowed by the civil authority to exercise all the 
appropriate duties of the parental relation, in the government and 
instruction of their children, and to make what provision they 
can for their temporal and eternal welfare. In such a reform, 
slavery will indeed be corrected ; its abuses will be removed, but 
it will be by the entire subversion of the institution itself. Those 
who are now in slaveiy might still, in some cases, be servants ; 
but they would not be slaves. An equitable apprenticeship to 
business is not slavery ; an equitable domestic servitude is not ; 
no person who enjoys the rights of property and of personal 
liberty, can justly be considered a slave. 

Perhaps, however, a much less thorough reform of this insti- 
tution, than now indicated, would satisfy the wishes of some, and 
accord with their apprehensions of what justice requires. But 
which of these improvements is not necessary, in order to render 
this species of servitude right ? In respect to wiiich of the par- 



IS SLAVERY WRONG ? 79 

tlculars referred to, is not slavery wrong? If every other enact- 
ment of our present systems of slavery was repealed, but the 
right to exact service, and that without paying for it at the 
market price, the remnant would be wrong. TIkj power to ex- 
act service of our fellow men, cxcej)t on the ground of some ob- 
vious necessity, or in satisfaction of some equitable claim, is an 
invasion of their undoubted rights, and is criminal. But what is 
the claim of the slave-holder 7 Whence is his title derived ? Is 
that claim for value received by the slave ? Not at all. The 
slave has received no benefit from him, for which the surrender 
of his liberties is an equitable exchange. From iiis earliest 
3-ears he is, in most cases, the subject of injurious treatment by 
his master, in various respects, particularly in respect to the 
means of intellectual and moral im{)rovcment. The master's 
claim to a fellow being as his slave, cannot be sustained on the 
ground that the slave is justly indebted to him to that amount, 
for the care and expense bestowed on him in his infancy. That 
admission would lay a foundation for the enslaving of children, 
as such. It would entitle all parents to hold their children as 
slaves, which is contrary, not only to the dictates of benevo- 
lence, but to the best established principles of justice. Parents 
have not a right to enslave their children, and laws that should 
invest them with this right, would be unjust and unreasonable. 
The title of a master to an African who is torn from his coun- 
try and sold as a slave by the man who seized him, is that deri- 
ved from the thief and robber. The thief and robber, however, 
cannot give a just title to the property they have seized and ta- 
ken from the true proprietor. The owner has a just title to his 
property, notwithstanding its seizure. The man who buys of a 
robljcr, purchases the robber's title, nothing more. That title is 
no better when transferred to the hands of a jiurchaser, than it 
was before. Every transfer that may succeed, is a transfer of 
the same insufficient title. The owner of the stolen jn-operty 
mav be destitute of power to enforce his claim to it, but that 
claim remains uncancelled, till it is equitably destroyed. Has 
the claim of a stolen African to himself, been equitably cancel- 
led? The property which a human being hiLs in himself, is of 
the most sacred character. It ought manifastly to he secured 
to the true proprietor, by all possible; ;uid reasonable means. 
Are there no possible and rcasonable means, then, of securing 
it to the stolen African? The answer to this question is obvi- 
ous. Means of securing the property in question to the original 



80 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

proprietor, are abundant. That property, therefore, ought to be 
secured to him. The proprietor is at hand with his title, and 
ready to assert it. He that purchases a stolen man, purchases 
a false title, in the very presence of the true proprietor, and with 
the amplest means of discovering the validity of the proprietor's 
title to the property. Laws which recognize that false title as 
valid, are therefore manifestly wrong. 

Whence does the slave-holder derive a title to the child of his 
slave, as a slave? The child commences its existence a crea- 
ture of God, and in the first instance, under obligations only to 
God, as his servant. His relations to an earthly parent, indicate 
that parent not as his possessor, but merely his protector and 
guardian, during the period of his incompetency to take care of 
himself. It is the duty of the parent to bring the child forward 
to such a degree of improvement, that he may be able to take 
care of himself as soon as practicable. He is bound, in duty, 
to consult for the; happiness and welfare of the child, as truly as 
he does for his own. For whatever care and labor he judicious- 
ly expends on the improvement and support of the child, he is 
entitled, in justice, to a compensation. That compensation must 
be made ciiiefly in service, as the child has no other means of 
making it. But the service which the parent has a right to ex- 
act of his child, is not the subjection of a slave ; far from it. 
Neither is it perpetual servitude of any' kind. The judgment 
and experience of the world have acquiesced in assigning the 
child to a state of servitude, not slavery, to his parent, till he at- 
tains the age of twenty-one years ; making it the duty of the pa- 
rent to afford him support and instruction till that period, and 
giving the parent a right to what service he can obtain in the 
mean time, as a compensation for parental care and expenditure. 
This arrangement is generally considered just to both the parties 
concerned. It is attended with great advantages to both, and 
affords the parent as great a pecuniary compensation as justice 
and benevolence authorize him to require. 

The duties of parental oversight and support may be trans- 
ferred to others, in which case filial obligation will undergo a cor- 

' DO 

responding transfer. But in this transfer there is no fundamen- 
tal change of obligations and relations. The relations of the 
child are substantially those of a child, and those of the guar- 
dian are, in most respects, the same as those of the father, which 
were transferred to him ; never greater. 

The parent has no equitable title to his child as a slave, and 



IS SLAVERY WRONG ? 81 

cannot convey such a title to others ; for he can only convey to 
another what he possesses himself. The title of the slaveholder, 
therefore, to the children of his slaves, is false on two «,nounds : 

(1.) On the ground that the parents are not equitably his, but, 
their own, by a title which has not been equitably cancelled, and 
which is therefore of un(|ucstionable validity. 

(2.) On the ground that even if the parents were equita- 
bly his, a title to the parents does not comprehend an equitable 
title to the children as slaves, but only as children. 

On the whole, it appears that the institution of slavery, or the 
laws and usages investing men with a title to their fellow men as 
slaves, are plainly repugnant to justice ; that slavery is therefore 
wrong, and that those who have the power, and upon whom the 
responsibility is devolved by Divine providence, ought to unite 
in pulling down this enormous system of oppression. 

2. Is it wrong to sustain and exercise the otHce of slave- 
holder under existing slave laws ? 

Human laws do not make wrong right. The greatest crimes 
may be legalized, as has often been done ; but they are crimen; 
still. Laws, for example, authorizing persecution, have existed 
in many countries. Thousands of innocent persons have be^n 
subjected to imprisonment, torture, confiscation of property, exile, 
and death itself, by due process of human laws. But do any 
suppose that those executions were right ? Did the neighbor 
who impeached the innocent, or the judge who condemned him, 
or the executioner who confined, or tortured, or beheaded, or 
burned him, do right? Human laws, indeed, justified them, hut 
are they acquitted in the sight of God, and at the bar of enlight. 
ened conscience ? 

If human laws can make it right for a judge to condemn the 
innocent, or for an executioner to put him to death, they can 
reverse the law of Jehovah, and subvert his moral government 
over men. If the legalizing of crime makes it right in any sin- 
gle case, it may have this etFect in another, and another case, 
till all crime is legalized and destroyed. Where then will be the 
government of God? Where the immutable distinction between 
right and wrong, which is so much the boast and glory of the 
christian morality? What a mere figment is the Divine law, if 
it is not to be enforced in opposition to the laws of men ? (lod 
says, respect the life of the innocent ; the liuman legislator says, 
no, kill him. Which of these is the higher authority, it is easy 
to decide. An apostle decided this (juestion long since, when 

8 



82 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

he declared — "Whether it be right in the sight of God to 
hearken to you more than to God, judge ye." Acts iv. 19. 
God has not established one rule of conduct for apostles, and 
another for others. He has established one rule for all men, 
and that is the rule of obedience to him, the opinions, enact- 
ments, and inflictions of men to the contrary, notwithstanding. 
Matt. X. 28 ; Luke xii. 5. 

On the same principle that the three servants of God, though 
standing alone, refused to worship the image set up by Nebu- 
chadnezzar, at the peril of their lives, (Dan. iii. 8 — 26,) they 
would, if in power, have refused to support or enforce such wor- 
ship. The principle on which they acted, was that of the su- 
premacy of God and of his law. The wonderful interposition 
of God in their favor, is a sufficient testimony to the correctness 
of that principle. 

The supremacy of God and of his law is the fundamental 
principle of correct morals. It is the pole star of piety and 
virtue. 

Right and wrong are founded in the nature and relations of 
moral actions, considered with reference to the laws of God as 
the supreme rule of moral action. A consideration of human 
laws may be left out of the account, in determining the moral 
quality of actions. They are of no use in these determinations, 
except as far as they correspond with the law of God ; and 
where they differ from this, are liable to be of the greatest injury 
in perverting our moral judgments. If we judge of conduct by 
an incorrect rule, our judgment will necessarily be erroneous. 

By the law of God, it is wrong to hold men as things, be- 
cause they are more than things, and have rights of personal lib- 
erty and of property, that are invaded by their being held in 
subjection of this kind. By this law, slaves are as truly entitled 
to the right use of their faculties, to a full equivalent for their in- 
dustry, to the liberty of acquiring property, and the power of 
holding, enjoying, and using it, as any other class of persons. 
The invasion of these and other rights, in the case of the slaves, 
is as truly prohibited by the law of God, as in that of others. 
Tlie idea that a man derives a just right from human laws to hold 
his fellow men in a state of servitude, which is contrary to the 
law of God, is absurd. Human authority cannot make it our 
duty to violate one of God's requirements. Scripture examples 
and precepts have placed this truth on the most unquestionable 
ground ; on the firmest basis. However others act, he who sub- 



IS SLAVERY WRONG ? 8S 

mils to the Scriptures as tjic law of his life, may not do evil that 
good may come. 

If the law of God may not be violated, wIumi the violation of 
it is positively required by human laws, and those requirements 
enforced by the heaviest penalties, still less may this be done 
with impunity, when those laws merely grant permission and af- 
ford authority to tlie subject to do it if he chooses, without impo- 
sing any obligations on him to that effect. 

Permission to exercise the office of slave-holder, and support 
in doing it, are all that is done for slavery, by the laws of slave- 
holding states. No man is compelled by law to become a slave- 
holder, or to continue in this practice contrary to his will. 

It is a melancholy fact, that legal permission to practice injus- 
tice in any department of human agency, is enough to open 
wide the flood-gates of iniquity anywhere. Take away from 
human life, or from any kind of property, the safe-guards thrown 
around them by the law, and none of us would be secure for a 
week. 

Such has been the experience of the world in respect to slave- 
ry. Permission is given to enslave all who are born in cer- 
tain circumstances. And lo ! it is done ! The christian and 
infidel are alike eager to seize the unprotected as their lawful 
prey. These victims of oppression are given up to their Icllow 
men to be enslaved for life. The whole grant is improved, and 
as a general rule, death alone is the herald that proclaims liberty 
to the captive, and the opening of the prison to them that are 
bound. 

It appears then, that if slave-holding is wrong in itself, the 
authority which it derives from human laws, cannot niake it right, 
or diminish in any degree, its criminality. Tiie question, there- 
fore, whether it is wrong to hold men as slaves, under existing 
slave-laws, must be answered according to the previous question, 
whether the institution is wrong ? That answer is an allirmative 
one ; this must consequently be affirmative. 

Tile criminality of holding men as slaves under existing slave- 
laws, may be farther illustrated by the Ibllowing considerations : 

1. It involves all the guilt inherent in slave-holding. tJod's 
law, both natural and revealed, is a rule of action, the authority 
of which is far above that of municipal statutes. It is the only 
proper and supreme rule of moral action, other laws having no^ 
tbrce where they come in collision with this. All the guilt of 
slave-holding arising from the undue restraint of liberty, the 



84 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

education of human beings for working machines, wthholding 
from the laborer a just compensation for his labor, &c., is charge- 
able upon the slave-holder under existing slave-laws, as truly as 
if there were no laws to sanction this procedure. 

The idea that the slave-holder can shift his responsibility to the 
laws is entirely erroneous. God's law binds him irrevocably to 
the practice of justice and mercy, human laws to the contrary 
notwithstanding. By God's law, not by that of men, the moral- 
ity or immorality of his conduct must be determined. By this 
he will stand or fall at the last day. 

2. The man who assumes and administers the office of slave- 
holder, virtually gives his assent to the laws establishing slavery, 
and becomes a supporter of this institution. A slave-holder may 
denounce slavery as wrong in words ; he may profess to abhor 
the system of legislation by which it is created and upheld ; but 
his act of holding slaves is a practical support of that system, 
which does far more to perpetuate it, than he can possibly do by 
other means to pull it down. Every instance of slave-holding 
contributes to the extension of slavery, by multiplying its victims : 
and to the stability of it, by its effect, considered as an example 
for the imitation of others. This is particularly the case in re- 
spect to pious slave-holders, and others who are considered as 
being persons of correct moral principles. The examples and 
countenance of such persons are the principal supports of slave- 
ry. It is sustained in credit, chiefly by their names; and if 
not thus sustained, could not long stand at all. The examples 
of good men are often followed without reflection or inquiry. 
They are supposed of course, to be safe. Good men, therefore, 
are under greater responsibilities than others, and ought to act 
with corresponding circumspection. Their sins are both more 
criminal and more injurious, than those of others, in proportion 
to the light and knowledge which they possess, and the standing 
which they have in the community. 

3. Every slave-holder is responsible, to a great extent, for all 
the injustice and cruelty which attend unnecessarily, the admin- 
istration of slavery. Slavery is the occasion of a vast amount 
of wickedness, which is not inherent in the system, and insep- 
arable from it, but which attends it as a natural accompaniment, 
and which flows from it as a natural consequence of undue au- 
thority and subjection. Some may administer it with humanity, 
making the necessarily galling )oke of this bondage as light as 
possible ; others will do it with rigor, making it unnecessarily severe 



IS SLAVERY WRONG ? 85 

and oppressive. The instances in which slavery is made as light, 
and clothed with as little injustice as possible, in which it is at- 
tended with no evils but such as are inse[)arable from it, are 
comparatively few. Those in which its attendant and inciden- 
tal evils are numerous and oppressive, are not few. They are 
numbered by thousands and tens of thousands. 

For all these incidental injuries, relating as they do both to 
temporal and eternal interests, partly occasional and partly 
habitual, the institution of slavery, and all who unite in uphold- 
ing it, are justly responsible. 

A single insulated act of injustice docs not draw after it a 
train of responsibilities to be compared with that which is con- 
nected with extensive systems of evil doing. Holding men as 
slaves has this disadvantage, that it belongs to a system of op- 
pression, and tends to the support of that system, in all its parts, 
and with all its abuses. 

Where the emancipation of slaves is prohibited by law, or 
the benevolent ends of it frustrated by legislative enactments, 
designed to prevent this result, the path of exact duty may not 
be always apparent. The slave-holder, in circumstances of this 
kind, finds himself invested with legal rights, which it is mani- 
festly wrong for him to exercise. He has the legal right to sub- 
ordinate the temporal and spiritual interests of his fellow men to 
his own. He may do this in the case of tens and hundreds. 
But he cannot do it innocently. He may verily think he is do- 
ing God service, in the exercise of oppression ; but his thinking 
so does not make it so. The existing laws impeding the eman- 
cipation of slaves, render this class of persons peculiarly depen- 
dent upon their masters, and peculiarly liable to injustice. Op- 
pression is encouraged, justice and mercy discouraged. 

In such cases, what ought the slave-holder to do? He ought 
to consult for the welfare of his slaves, on the same princi|)les 
that he does for that of himself and children. If, on mature 
deliberation, and after a careful estimate of slavery, he would be 
willing to have been trained up for it, and consigned to it him- 
self; if he would be willing to train up his children for it, and 
consign them to it, did the laws permit ; if he finds it conducive 
to the temporal an.' eternal interests of all the parties concerned, 
and agreeable to the law of a holy God, who forbids all inirigh- 
teousness, on pain of liis eternal displeasure; then let him |)rosc- 
cute the intention of the law, and subject his horse and his brother 
to the same arbitrary sway, and hold them alike by the title of 



86 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

"chattels personal, to all intents and purposes whatsoever/' 
But if conscience shrink from such a procedure, however authow 
rized and encouraged by men, then let him that is armed by law 
with the power of exercising this oppression, forbear. Let him 
put that armor off as quickly and as entirely as possible. 

But the question still returns, What shall the slave-holder do? 
Let him make all reasonable efforts and sacrifices to place his 
servants, in his estimation and in that of justice not his slavesy 
beyond the reach of injustice and oppression. Let him exercise 
a noble generosity, a pure benevolence, in respect to this matter. 
Let him take no advantage of his power, for the injury of his 
servants either in tlieir persons, characters, property, or civil and 
religious rights as men. But let him act in relation to them, on 
the principles which led the Redeemer of the world, though rich, 
to become poor, that we through his poverty might be rich. 

It is not necessary that a slave-holder should dismiss his 
slaves from his care, in order to acquit himself of the guilt of 
slave-holding. He may release them from the bondage of 
slavery, and still hold them as apprentices, hired servants, and 
objects of guardianship, in the relation of children or wards. 
He ought to give them an interest in his property, equal to their 
just dues, after all reasonable deductions are made for the expense 
and responsibilities incurred in taking care of them ; or else to 
pay them at the mai'ket price for their services, in some other 
way, and to allow them to expend or invest the same for theiF 
own benefit, and according to their discretion. In other words, 
the man who is now a slave-holder, ought not to exercise in any 
case, the despotism contemplated by the slave-laws ; but, in the 
place of it, a righteous sovereignty, limited by the strictest justice 
and the most impartial benevolence, in which the interests af his 
servants should be respected according to their true value, as 
really as his own. 

But even in the exercise of such an authority, the master 
would not be justified in claiming his fellow men as his perpetual 
servants. 

The subjects of civil government have the liberty of going 
from one country to another. This is the case even under those 
which are most despotic. The right of exchanging one coun- 
try, and the jurisdiction of one government, for another, is found- 
ed in justice and benevolence, and the invasion of it without just 
cause, is an act of manifest and flagrant injustice. On the same 
principle, servants of mature age ought to be allowed to ex- 



IS SLAVERY WRONG ? 87 

change the sovereignty of one master for that of another. A 
smaller amount of liberty than this, is altogether less th.'»n their 
necessities require, and is insutlicient for the purposes of justice. 

By adopting the princii)lcs above recommended, the slave- 
holder would be converted into a master with limited authority, 
and the head of a limited and righteous sovereignty; that which 
is now a stock or herd of slaves, into a principality of free-men, 
under an equitable government, having liberty to exchange the 
same for any other, whenever they could honestly do it, and 
whenever, in their opinion, such a change was expedient ; and 
slavery would be entirely abolished by the voluntary relinquish- 
ment of it on the part of masters. 

On the whole, it appears both that the institution of slavery is 
wrong, it being a system of laws and usages authorizing gross 
injustice, and conflicting with the highest interests of men as im- 
mortal beings ; and that exercising the office of slave-holder 
under this institution, is also a wrong for which the institution is 
no proper justification, which existing circumstances do not re- 
quire, and which God does not allow. 

Those who may be still unconvinced of the truth of these po- 
sitions, are requested to consider the following additional topics of 
argument. It is believed that they atford strong confirmation of 
the reasonings and conclusions above stated : 1 

1. The etfect of slavery on the temporal prosperity of all the 
persons concerned, the masters and slaves. 

2. Its etlect on the intellectual and social improvement of all 
the persons concerned. 

3. Its effect on their religious and moral improvement, consid- 
ered particularly in respect to the number of actual conversions, 
and the degree and amount of piety and holiness attained. 

4. Its effect on the interests of the colored race generally in 
this country, in depressing and otherwise injuring them. 

5. Its effect on the interests of this nation, considered with 
reference to all classes of persons. 

6. The dangers to be apprehended from this source, if they 
are not averted by timely repentance and reformation. 



88 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

SECTION VIII. 

OrGHT SLAVERY TO BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED ? 

Some persons think it a matter of little consequence, to inquire 
what ought to be done, in respect to the abolition jf slavery, 
under the apprehension that the determination of this question in 
the most satisfactory manner, will be entirely ineffectual as to the 
attainment of the desired result. " If men were willing to do 
what they ought to do," say they, " the case would be very dif- 
ferent from what it is at present. But as it is, we had better 
consider what slave-holders and the slave-holding community 
are willing to do, and leave the inquiry, what they ought to do, 
for future and subsequent consideration." God, however, has 
not acted on this plan, and those who are engaged in his service, 
and who acknowledge his authority, have no liberty to adopt it. 

God does not adapt his requirements and expostulations to the 
wishes of men, but to the demands of justice and benevolence. 
" He utters his judgments against them touching all their wick- 
edness." Jer. i. 16. He commands the friend of righteous- 
ness, " Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and 
show my people their transgressions, and the house of Israel 
their sins." Isa. Iviii. 1. He says of the false prophets, '' If 
they had adhered to my counsel, and caused my people to hear 
my words, then they would have turned them from their evil 
way, and from the evil of their doings." Jer. xxiii. 22. Again, 
" He that hath my word, let him speak it faithfully. Is not my 
word like a fire, saith the Lord, and iiku a hammer that breaketh 
the rock in pieces ?" xxiii. 28, 29. 

Those who distrust the adaptation of truth to promote righ- 
teousness, or its efficiency by the Divine blessing to smite down 
the idols and to slay the very leviathans of wickedness, must 
have an imperfect knowledge of its past successes, as well 
as of the declared purposes of God respecting it. Moral truth 
has a power over the conscience, which never yet has been fully 
appreciated. The empire of sin is maintained chiefly by shrink- 
ing away from the clear light and renovating influences of truth. 
" He that believeth not is condemned," is urder the dominion 
of sin ; " and this is the condemnation, that light has come into 
the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because 
their deeds were evil." John iii. 18, 19. 



OUGHT SLAVERY TO BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED ? 89 

The principles of the Bible are sufficiently clear and decisive 
on this subject, for the direction of ail who respect its authority 
as the \vord of God. They have been amply tested by expe- 
rience. Truth, when spoken in faithfulness, and accompanied 
with the prayer of the righteous, has achieved the most surpri- 
sing victories over selfishness and other forms of sins. 

Slavery has already felt its power. Some of the strongest 
fortresses of this giant evil have been stormed with success, and 
others are giving way. If this son of Anak cannot be smitten 
down and destroyed by the sword of the Holy Spirit, that weapon 
and the invisible hand of the Almighty, by wiiich it is widlded, 
are unworthy of our confidence ; and wo must seek for light 
from some other quarter of the universe, or sit down in hopeless 
despair. 

Truth however, strong as it is in the power of the Almighty, 
does not go forth alone to the achievement of its victories over 
the conscience and heart of man. God's providential govern, 
ment leads, pursues, and sustains it, in every stage of its progress. 

The battle that is now being fought against slavery, against all 
the inherent and accompanying wickedness of this deeply rooted 
and strongly fortified system of oppression, may severely try our 
faith, our benevolence, our generosity, our compassion, our cour- 
age. But it is the Lord's, and if we come to the attack in sub. 
jection to his will, and in his spirit, the words that we utter shall 
not return unto us void, but shall accomplish that wiiich he de- 
sires, and shall prosper in the tiling whereto he sent them. Isa. 
Iv. 11. 

The question, Ought slavery to be immediately abolished 1 
resolves itself into the two following : 

1. Ought slavery to be ever abolished ? 

2. Ought those who possess the legitimate power, to abolish 
it immediately ? 

1 . Ouglit slavery to be ci^er abolished ? 

That it ought to be abolished at some time, and in some way, 
is conceded by nearly all candid men, wlio have not a [)ecuniary 
or secular interest of some kind, in its being uj)held. It is con- 
ceded, moreover, by the great majority of intelligent slave-hold- 
ers themselves. The philanthroi)ist, the politician, the moraHst, 
and christian, all cry out against slavery, ;is involving a violation 
of the laws of God, and of the un(]uestionable rights of man. 
In denouncing slavery as a curse tp the world, as a great politi- 
cal and moral evil, chilling the buds of happiness, and blasting 



90 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

the fruits of virtue through all the ranks of society, but espe* 
cially in the bosom of the slave, there is great unanimity among 
intelligent and good men ; a unanimity not exceeded in any 
other instances of a similar and legalized enormity. 

If any additional argument were needed for the establishment 
of the opinion now prevalent, that slavery ought to be abolished 
at some time, the preceding exposition of its nature and relations 
might be referred to, as sufficient. But there is no need of ar- 
gument on this point ; or if such argument is needed in some 
cases, those are not the cases to which this dissertation is partic- 
ularly addressed. 

I conclude, therefore, in accordance with the judgment of the 
civilized world, that slavery ought to be abolished ai some time, 
because it is \yrong ; and as such, tends to diminish the happi- 
ness, and impair the virtue and piety of men ; and also to oh- 
scure the glory of God, and thwart the benevolent ends of his 
righteous government over the moral universe. 

2. Ought those who possess the legitimate pov/^er, to abolish 
slavery immediately ? 

Slavery is an institution of man, not of God. It has been 
shown to be fundamentally unjust and oppressive, and conse- 
quently, directly opposed to the law of God, and hostile to the 
best interests of mankind. The obligation to abolish it at any 
time, arises from the fact of its inherent criminality, and of its 
inevitable consequences of mischief and misery ; consequences 
that are a manifest infraction of the law of love, to which the 
moral universe is subjected. 

To abolish slavery, is to cease to uphold it by law ; or it may 
be considered, as comprehending the abrogation of the existing 
systems of slave-laws, and the enactment of laws forbidding the 
reduction of human beings to a state of slavery, and the holding 
of them in it. 

It is of course the work of the law-making power. If it 
ought to be done at all, it ought to be done by those who possess 
that power, either originally as the source of it, or by delegation, 
as the depositories and agents of the exercise of it, within pre- 
scribed and constitutional limits. The power to abolish slavery 
is lodged somewhere ; either with the people collectively, or with 
their representatives ; in some cases, with the former, and in 
others, with the latter. Wherever lodged, it is laid under eter- 
nal responsibilities, for the doing of the greatest possible amount 



OUGHT SLAVERY TO BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED ? 01 

of good, and the prevention of the greatest posssible amount 
of evil. 

In the first instance, and during every successive period of its 
existence, slavery has been the creature of men. Men created 
it. They sustain it at this moment. The first originators of it 
were responsible to God and to the universe, for their agency in 
bringing it forth. Those who now sustain it arc equally respon- 
sible for the agency they exert in upholding it. The character 
of slavery cannot be understood without considering it in con- 
nection with the agents of its support and continuance. Sepa- 
rate from them, it has no moral character. Considered in its 
true relations to them, it has been shown both to have a moral 
character, and to have one which is deeply depraved ; a charac- 
ter of aggravated wickedness. Those who possess the power 
to abolish shivery, are, under God, the trustees of the slaves. 

Tiye execution of their high trust, involves the immediate aboli- 
tion of slavery. It cannot involve less than this ; for less would 
not be right ; and less not being right, could not tend to the 
greatest good ; but in proportion to its defection from strict righ- 
teousness, would necessarily tend to evil. Righteousness alone 
is good, and tends to happiness ; sin is evil in all its varieties 
and degrees, and tends to misery. 

The reasons for immediately abolishing slavery, may be com- 
prehended under the following heads : 

1. The institution is fundamentally wrong and oppressive. 
It is not founded in impartial benevolence, but in gross selfish- 
ness and injustice. That which is wrong cannot be useful even 
for a time, and we are not allowed by God to do evil, in the vain 
and delusive hope that good may come. Rom. lii. 8. 

2. It ought to be done immediately, because tiie injuries 
which slavery inflicts are immediate and immense. The insti- 
tution of slavery is doing constant injury. It maintains an in- 
cessant and fatal conflict with the interests of immortal minds. 
Every hour multiplies its injuries at an enormous rate ; adds to 
the long catalogue of its cruelties and other crimes, and inllicts 
new wounds on its bleeding victims. Many of those injuries 
arc remediless. Many of those wounds are incurable. Many 
of those victims are sacrifictxl to eternal sorrow. The tide of 
slavery is one of moral desolation and death. It is rolling on 
with tremendous force, and bearing every moment new victims 
on its bosom, and inflicting new injuries in its progress. Those 
clothed by Divine providence witli legitimate authority to say to 



92 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

this torrent, " Thus far shalt thou come and no farther ; here 
shall thy proud waves be stayed, thy moral desolations end ;" 
stand in the true Thermopylae of freedom and the world. The 
%ht of Leonidas and his compatriots was but children's play, in 
comparison with the achievement reserved for them, and placed 
within their power. There is here a victory to be gained in the 
cabinet, which is worthy to cast an eternal shade on the most 
splendid achievements of the battle-field. This achievement is 
the redemption of millions in the very garden of the world, from 
the most degrading bondage. It calls for a pure heart, a clear 
head, unshrinking courage, and a determined purpose. Did Di- 
vine providence provide a Leonidas and his compeers for the 
dreadful exigency of an ancient state, when the tide of exorbi- 
tant and unlawful power was sweeping over it ; did the Almighty 
lay under contribution the vast accumulations of stores for ele- 
mental warfare, treasured up in the natural world, in order to 
the deliverance of the Israelites from the bondage of Egypt? 
Will not the same Divine providence, the same unaltered and 
unchangeable Jehovah, nerve with an adequate portion of his 
strength, enliven with his Spirit, and enlighten with his wisdom, 
the subjects of this immense responsibility in respect to the abo- 
lition of slavery, do they but come up to his help against the 
mighty, with the generous fervor of the true patriot, and the self- 
denying and self-sacrificing devotion of a far greater than he, 
the Irue christian? 

God has never been wanting to the cause of humanity, and 
in respect to that, he has ever been a God at hand, and mighty 
to save. He will not be wanting in this case. 

The obligation to abolish slavery immediately, is not diminish- 
ed by the fact that it is shared by many, and that many must 
concur in order to effect the entire and universal abolition of it. 
It is just as much the duty of the many, as it would be that of a 
single individual, or of any number however limited, were the 
power to achieve this end, vested in that individual or that num- 
ber. The unwillingness of any on whom this work devolves, to 
co-operate in it, does not diminish either their obligation to unite 
in doing it, or the obligation of others who share this power, to 
use it vigorously for the end in question. Unwillingness to dis- 
charge duty, does not cancel obligation. 

The argument is this : slavery pours forth a mighty torrent 
of mischiefs upon mankind. Its victims are numbered by mill- 
ions even in these United States. Many of its injuries are in- 



OUGHT SLAVERY TO BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED? 93 

calculable and eternal. These are multiplying and increasing 
every moment. 

But there ai'e men having ample powers to bind up this 
dragon, red with the blood of miHions, and still thirsting for 
more. They can brand him with the mark of Cain, and banish 
him from the realms of civilization and Christianity. They 
cannot indeed, repair the mischiefs he has done, or dry up the 
tears he has wrung from suffering humanity. But they can 
pluck the infant from his den, and deliver those in the midst of 
life from being any longer the objects of his cruelty. Shall they 
bind him and banish him at once and forever ? or shall they let 
him continue his ravages ? 

The voice of God, like the noise of many waters, and of 
mighty thunderings, commands that he be bound, and banished, 
and allowed no more to afflict the world. He speaks to our hu- 
manity as men, to our pity as christians, to our personal inter- 
ests, as yet to be judged and sentenced to endless life or eter- 
nal death, according as we have exercised kindness and charity, 
or not, in this sulTcring world. Matt. xxv. 31 — 46. God places us 
here for the trial and exercise of our benevolence, as well as for 
that of our faith. On the manner in which we sustain this trial, 
our own interests for eternity chiefly depend. The interests of 
others are indeed involved, but not to the extent of our own. 
Every blow that we strike at the interests of a fellow being, re- 
turns with redoubled force upon ourselves ; so that, in all the 
injuries we inflict, whether by the activity of our malice and 
selfishness, or by the deficiency and sluggishness of our love, 
we ourselves are chiefly injured, and are ultimately the principal 
sufferers. 

3. Those who have the power, ought to abolish slavery im- 
mediately, because it may not be in their power to do it at a 
future time. God invests men with legislative power for the 
purpose of their doing good with it. Tlie period of its invest- 
ment in the hands of individuals is short and uncertain. The 
man that enjoys this investment to-day, may be called to resign 
it to-morrow. It becomes him, therefore, to do with his might 
whatever good work his hands find to do. 

That of abolishing slavery requires his attention more than 
any other work, depending on the exertion of uncertain powers, 
on account of the greatness of the interests wiiich it involves, 
and of its liability to be neglected by others, if it is by him. 
His neglect to attend to it may induce others to similar neglect 

9 



94 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

at the same time, and may serve as a precedent for his succes- 
sors. In this way it may be the cause of irreparable present 
mischief, and may place an incalculable benefit now attainable, 
beyond the possibility of future attainment. 

4. Slavery ought to be abolished immediately, because the 
work of abolishing it is easier now than it is hkely to be at any 
future time. 

We are authorized to judge of the future by the past. Since 
the first introduction of slaves to this country, they have been 
constantly and rapidly increasing. They now amount to more 
than two millions, and will doubtless continue to increase for 
years to come. The difficulty of emancipating them, other 
things being equal, is in proportion to their numbers ; conse- 
quently it is daily increasing in the ratio of their numerical in- 
crease. 

In other respects we possess every advantage at the present 
time for accomplishing their emancipation and turning it to 
profitable account, that we can ever hope to possess. 

The slaves are as well prepared for emancipation as they 
can ever be. Slavery is incompatible with any considerable de- 
gree of mental improvement. The key of knowledge and 
means of improvement are taken away from them, in order to 
keep them in peaceful subjection as slaves. This severity is 
not practiced merely for purposes of cruelty, but for those of 
security on the part of the masters. If it is necessary now, it 
will continue to be necessary ; and will be a perpetual bar in 
the way of their improvement while they remain in the condition 
of slaves. Various other impediments exist in the way of the 
elevation and improvement of the great mass of them, the re- 
moval of which it is preposterous to expect, except by the abo- 
lition of slavery. 

Here then, is a great work of justice and benevolence to be 
done at some time. The generation which shall do it, will be 
the benfactors of millions existing at the time, and will send 
down the stream of their beneficence, widening and deepening 
as it flows, to future ages, and to millions on millions yet unborn. 

This work is not only one of justice and benevolence, but one 
of necessity and mercy. It can be done now. There is ample 
power to do it. All that is wanting is a willing mind on the 
part of a majority of those who have the power. The difficul- 
ties to be encountered in doing it are indeed great, far greater 
than they would have been at an earlier period ; but they are 



OUGHT SLAVERY TO BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED ? 95 

less than they will probably ever be again. Will this generation 
do the work ? Having suifered its difficulties to accumulate with 
its increasing magnitude thus far, will those who have the power, 
do the work which it belongs to them to do ; or will they pass 
it on to a future age, to be done with more difficulty, and with 
diminished usefulness by other hands ? 

5. Another reason for abolishing slavery immediately, is, that 
the sooner this work is done, the greater will be the probable 
utility of it. Do it now, and the benotits of it will commence 
from this time to continue, and probably continue increasing, in 
all future time while the world shall stand, and while eternity 
shall endure. Even the difference of a single year is of great 
consequence in this matter ; that of a generation is inconceiv- 
ably great. The delay of this work for a year will doubtless 
change the destiny of many immortal souls forever. The delay 
of it for an age must be fraught with the most amazing conse- 
quences of temporal and eternal injury to men. The work of 
the abohtion of slavery, therefore, above all things demands dis- 
patch. It is a work of the utmost urgency. 

6. The increasing danger of servile insurrections, and other 
Providential judgments on account of slavery and its accompa- 
nying sins, is another and strong reason for immediately abolish- 
ing this institution. 

The history of other nations and of past ages, is full of ad- 
monition and warning on these points. The slavery of the an- 
cients was, in many cases, visited upon them by Divine provi- 
dence, with terrible retribution. Greece, Rome and other an- 
cient states, suffered severely from this cause. 

The Scriptures also inform us, that this was the case with 
Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, Assyria, Babylon, and the king, 
doms of Judah and Israel. It may be the case with the United 
States, unless prevented by speedy repentance and reformation. 

Tlie extreme sensitiveness of the South on the subject of slave- 
ry, arises from their apprehensions on this point, and it indi- 
cates a state of mind and of things, which must be exceedingly 
uncomfortable. 

If profound silence would avert the danger, or remove it to 
any considerable distance, there would be some propriety in the 
exorbitant demands of many Southern men on this subject. It 
would be cruel in the extreme to blow upon coals liable to ig- 
nite of themselves, and capable, under the providence of Clod, of 
producing the most dreadful explosion, and the most wide-spread 



96 DISSERTATION ON SERVITTTDE. 

ruin among all classes of persons. But the profoundest silence 
on the part of his friends or of himself, would not purchase se- 
curity to the adventurer, advancing in darkness and unconcern 
to the verge of a dreadful precipice. It would not distance for 
a moment the danger before him, or mitigate in any degree, 
the final catastrophe. 

So it is in regard to slavery. This great moral phenomenon 
continues its progressive development, whether observed or not. 
Much of its work of mischief, like the guilt of its perpetration, 
is in secret, and if not seasonably abolished its final catastrophe 
will, in all probability, burst with surprising suddenness and fury 
upon the land, and deluge it with dreadful ruin. 

It is not necessary that a prospective evil should be certain, 
in order to furnish a reasonable ground for precautionary mea- 
sures. If the evil apprehended is great and probable, or mere- 
ly possible at no distant period, it ought to be provided against 
by the most vigorous and efficient means. Such is at least the 
fact with the evils of servile insurrections, and other national 
judgments to be apprehended from slavery. These evils are more 
than possible at no distant period, they arc altogether probable ; 
and at the same time, are of a nature the most terrific and in- 
tolerable. There is no certain means of correcting them but by 
the immediate abolition of slavery ; to this measure, therefore, as 
one of protection and self-defence, the supporters of the institu- 
tion are loudly called. 

7. The immediate abolition of slavery is demanded by a due 
regard to the national honor. 

In the memorable declaration of our independence, we used 
as a nation the following language : 

" We hold these truths to be self-evident : That all men are 
created equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with cer- 
tain unalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness ; that to secure these rights, governments 
are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the 
consent of the governed ; that whenever any form of govern- 
ment becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the 
people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new govern- 
ment, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its 
powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect 
their safety and happiness." 

This declaration has never been revoked ; it is the language 
of the nation still. In pursuance of these principles, the strug- 



OUGHT SLAVERY TO BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED? 97 

gle of the revolution was prosecuted with glorious success. 
The yoke of the British crown was declared to be oppressive, 
and was broken, that we might enjoy the liberty which we claim- 
ed as our undoubted and unalienaljle right. We ascertained our 
own rights, and secured them at great expense and hazard. 
But how have we dealt with our neighbor? Have we loved him 
as ourselves ? Have we thought the yoke of oppression as ill 
adapted to his interests as ours ; as galhng to him as to us ? 
The answer to these questions is found in the humiliating fact, 
that at the very time of the declaration of our rights, and of the 
struggle for our independence, we were exercising over men 
" created free and equal" with ourselves, a degree of oppression, 
in comparison with which, the oppression that we complained of 
and resisted as intolerable, was not to be named ; and still more, 
in the additional fact, that for more than sixty years we have en- 
joyed the benefits of our blood-bought freedom, during which 
time the praise of liberty has never ceased, and the course of our 
prosperity has been one of unrivalled progress, and we have not 
yet found it in our hearts to proclaim liberty to the captive, and the 
opening of the prison to them that are bound in the most oppres- 
§ive servitude, by our authority. Weil may we say wiih the 
perpetrators of a memorable instance of injustice in ancient 
times, " We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we 
saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us, and we would 
not hear." Gen. xlii. 21. 

For a pittance of the price at which we purchased our own 
political independence, we might have procured the redemption 
of our slaves. But we have not done it, and as a nation are as 
little inclined to do it now as we ever have been. 

Slavery is a reproach to any people, but more so to us than 
to any other, on account of the high ground we have taken in 
respect to liberty and justice, wherever our own political rights 
are concerned. 

Our system of slavery would disgrace the most despotic gov- 
ernments of Europe and Asia. How much more then is it dis- 
graceful to ourselves ? And inas; :!uch as we regard the national 
honor as above all ])rice, and desire to hold it up to the world in 
the native purity of freedom, untarnished by national crime, we 
ought to labor for the immediate abolition of slavery. The flag 
of freedom is deeply dishonored by being made the symbol of 
bondage to millions of our oppressed fellow countrymen. 

9* 



yW DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

There is at this moment a large and dark stain upon it, which 
nothing less than the at' 'ition of slavery can wipe away. 

The grounds which have now been stated, are deemed a firnn 
support for the doctrine that slavery ought to be immediately 
abolished. If this doctrine is true, it ought to b^j understood 
and promulgated. If it is not true, either let the fallacy of the 
reasonings by which it is supported be pointed out, or let liie con- 
trary opinion be established. There is no unkindness in urging 
important practical truth even upon unwilling ears, or in admin- 
istering deserved rebuke to a slumbering conscience. Such offi- 
ces are often required, and if the present should prove to have 
been a case of tliis kind, it will not be a solitary one. 

To the argument for the immediate abolition of slavery as 
now submitted, the following objections will occur : 

1. That the slaves are incompetent to enjoy liberty with ad- 
vantage to themselves. 

2. That they ai^e incapable of civil government in an emanci- 
pated state. 

3. That their immediate emancipation would produce intoler- 
able pecuniary embarrassment among the mass of slave-holders, 
and throughout the country. 

These objections I will now consider. 

1. The imii.ediate abolition of slavery is declared to be im- 
practicable, on the ground that the slaves are incompetent to 
enjoy liberty. 

The liberty referred to in this argument, is deliverance from a 
state of slavery. It is compatible v> ith a state of apprentice- 
ship ; of domestic servitude for wages, to which the servant 
may bind himself for any reasonable length of time, and on any 
reasonable and equitable conditions ; and of guardianship, to 
which persons incompetent by immature age or imbecility ari- 
sing froiJi any other cause, to take care of themselver, may be 
assigned by the civil authority, in order to their being properly 
taken care of. 

With this view of the liberty contemplated, is it true that the 
slaves are not competent to enjoy liberty ? Are not many of 
them competent to cnguge as hired servants to the very masters 
whom they now serve as slaves 1 Are they not competent to 
hire out as servants in the same departments of industry in 
which they now labor ? Will there not be a demand for them 
as hired servants, proportionable to that which now exists for 
tliem as slaves ? These questions admit only of an affirmative 



99 

answer. The man who is competent to labor as a slave, is com- 
petent to do so as a hired servant, in the department of labor to 
which he is accustomed. It requires no more skill to labor as a 
hired servant, than it does as a slave. But it is said, that having 
always been accustomed to work for an absolute master and un- 
der the lash, they will not be willing to work when delivered 
from a state of slavery. To this it may be answered : 

(1.) That the slaves if liberated, would be under the necessi- 
ty of laboring for their own support and for that of their families. 
They would have no other means of obtaining a living, even the 
most meagre. Their wants, therefore, would furnish the most 
powerful motives to the performance of some degree and some 
kind of labor. The kind which they would adopt would of 
com'se be that to which they are accustomed. To the adoption 
and prosecution of it, they would be impelled not only by their 
most pressing wants, those which are adapted to influence the 
mind in the lowest stages of improvement ; but by the desire of 
wealth, of an improved standing in the community, and a spirit 
of rivalship, together with the increased and increasing develop- 
ment of the parental and other social affections. It is impossible 
that these motives should be entirely ineffective. 

It is deeply to be regretted that the slaves of the United States, 
and slaves generally, are shut up in ignorance of letters, and ex- 
cluded from the various means of improvement afforded to others. 
But it is greatly in their favor considered as candidates for liber- 
ty, that they are bred to habits of industry and self-denial. An 
acquaintance with some branch of industry is of the highest 
consequence to those who are thrown upon their own resources. 
That attainment is generally possessed by the slaves, and in con- 
sequence of it they are far less impotent than many suppose. 

(2.) Laws may be enacted enforcing habits of industry, by 
authorizing the civil authority to bind out as a hired servant aiiy 
person who is found to be without regular employment, and at 
the same time without a visible supj)ort. Such laws exist in 
England and in some of the non slave-holding tates of this 
country. The immediate abolition of slavery might render 
them necessary to some extent, for the enforcement of industry, 
subsequent to that event. If a resort to them was necessary, 
they no doubt might be made an eflicient means of attaining the 
end in question. 

(3.) If the natural motives to industry, and legal enactments 
for the encouragement of the same, should prove iiisuflicient in 



100 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

some cases to secure the desired result, and to place the subject 
beyond the reach of pinching want, the fault would be visited 
chiefly on the head of the delinquent. As far as that should be 
the case, no injustice would be done ; and it is better that many 
should suffer as the consequence of their own faults, than that 
one should experience injustice and suffer by the faults of others. 

But wherein are the slaves incompetent to enjoy liberty ; libera- 
tion from a state of slavery ? Wherein are they unfit to enjoy 
either perfect liberty, or that of children and apprentices ? Chil- 
dren are not slaves by virtue of their relation to their parents as 
children ; apprentices are not slaves by virtue of their relation to 
their masters as apprentices. What then is the necessity for 
keeping in slavery those who are now in that condition, so far as 
their interests and wants are concerned ? The idea of such a 
necessity is absurd. It may be honestly entertained, but it is in 
palpable contrariety with the plainest decisions of common sense, 
and with the general experience of mankind. 

Slaves are human beings. Injustice and oppression are no 
more needful to them than to their masters. Their children are 
in no more need of the discipline of slavery than those of their 
masters. The state of children, not that of slaves, is best adapt- 
ed to the development of the intellectual and corporeal faculties 
of the children of slaves, and to that of their social and religious 
affections. An equitable condition is the only proper one for 
older persons. 

In regard to other portions of the human family, slavery is 
never supposed to be necessary. The poor, the feeble, the 
young, the ignorant, and the inexperienced, find other relations 
and institutions which suit them far better. On the same prin- 
ciple, the slave may be far better situated than in a state of 
slaveiy. Other relations and conditions are far better adapted to 
his necessities and wants as a rational and moral being. 

2. The immediate abolition of slavery is declared to be im- 
practicable, on the ground that the slaves are incapable of civil 
government in an emancipated state. 

The government of slaves is an unlimited despotism. They 
do not enjoy the protection and benefit of those equitable and be- 
nevolent laws, which the experience of mankind has shown to 
be necessary in order to secure the administration of justice. 
The entire government of the slave is in the hands of his mas- 
ter, and may be administered with mildness or rigor, according 
as the master is inclined. 



OUGHT SLAVERY TO BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED ? 101 

The abolition of slavery will still leave children and others 
who are supposed, on legal grounds, to be incompetent to take 
care o\' themselves, in the care of responsible parents as children, 
or ehii in a state of apprenticeship, or of subjection to masters 
as their guardians. Others will generally be employed as free, 
hired servants, in the different departments of industry to which 
they are accustomed. Thus situated, the civil authority will enjoy 
every facility for enforcing the observance of order, and for pro- 
curing obedience to all reasonable laws. The liberated slaves 
will not have the means of making effectual resistance, if they 
were in some cases disposed. The civil and military power of the 
slave-holding districts will be in the same hands after the abolition 
of slavery, in which it is now. It will be in every respect as great 
as it is now, and will admit of being greatly strengthened and 
increased by the influence ar\d co-operation of such liberated 
slaves, and other colored persons, as will find it for their interest 
to support the government. 

Every motive of interest and duty which can actuate the hu- 
man mind, will be capable of being put in requisition for the gov- 
ernment of liberated slaves. Such modes of punishment may 
be resorted to as the circumstances shall require. 

If the question related to their capacity for self-government, it 
would be very different from what it now is. It might, with 
some plausibilty, be contended, that they are not capable of self- 
government. If left unassisted to the work of erecting and sus- 
taining civil institutions, they would be in great danger of prov- 
ing unequal to such a task. They will not be called to this by 
the abolition of slavery. Civil institutions, the product of the 
experience of ages, are already in existence around them. The 
modification and additions which their liberation from a state of 
slavery will require, will be but slight, in comparison with the 
extent of the social edifice as it now stands. The work of 
making those modifications and additions will naturully devolve 
on experienced and able statesmen ; some of whom are as much 
so as any the world contains. There is not wanting, therefore, 
either the ability or the power requisite for the crisis contem- 
plated. The question, therefore, is not whether the liberated 
slaves will be able immediately to construct and support a civil 
govern njunt, but whether it will be possible to extend over them, 
and to support among them, a government already established 
on the firmest earthly basis ; a government of great strength, 
in consequence of the wisdom, justice, and benevolence of its in- 



102 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

ternal conformation ; and every part of which is upheld by the 
power of all the different states and districts which compose the 
Union. If liberated from slavery, those who are now slaves will 
have the greatest interest in supporting the government which 
liberates them. To that government they will be compelled to 
look for protection. They will find themselves at once depend- 
ant upon it for every privilege that is dear and valuable. It will 
be the charter of their rights. By its authority they will hold 
both their persons and their property. Their ignorance is not so 
great but that many at least would learn the importance of this 
government to their security, both in respect to their persons and 
property, of which they will become possessors for the first time 
by the act of emancipation. 

Some of the slaves would be easily governed. This would 
be the case with all who are truly pious, and with many who 
are but partially imbued with the principles of the christian reli- 
gion. Their religious sentiments and principles would facilitate 
their control by civil laws. The fear and love of God would 
incite them to obey the equitable laws and ordinances of man, 
under which they are providentially placed. Most would be 
very much under the influence of their masters and employers. 
All would be influenced more or less by the fear of punishment. 
Those who, under the influence of these and other motives, 
would naturally submit to the civil government, would contribute 
by their example and influence, to promote general submission 
even among the more refractory. 

The considerations above suggested certainly go far to prove 
that the slaves are capable of civil government. They derive, 
however, additional weight from the following facts : 

(1.) Multitudes of the human race, equally uninstructed and 
uninformed, are living in actual and peaceful subjection to civil 
government. Before the invention of printing, the condition of 
almost all nations was one of as great ignorance as that of 
slaves. The peasantry of many countries in Europe are still 
in almost as great ignorance of letters and other branches of 
general knowledge, as the slaves ; yet they are the peaceful sub- 
jects of civil government. 

If ignorance does not incapacitate other portions of the human 
family for a state of subjection to civil government, it does not 
incapacitate slaves for the same. 

(2. ) The African race are inclined to submission, both by a 
natural mildness of disposition, by which they are distinguished 



OUGHT SLAVERY TO BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED? 103 

from many other portions of the human family, and by long 
subjection to slave-holders. 

(3.) The abolition of slavery would remove the great obsta- 
cles to their improvement, and open wide to them the door of 
instruction in common and sabbath schools ; and at the same 
time it would bring into lively exercise many of those affections 
favorable to the prosperity and happiness of society, which are 
yet undeveloped, or developed only in a few cases, and in a 
slight degree. 

On the whole, therefore, we have ample ground to conclude 
that the slaves are capable of civil government ; and that the 
immediate abolition of slavery is not rendered impracticable by 
any deficiency in this respect. 

3. The immediate abolition of slavery is declared to be im- 
practicable on the ground that it would produce intolerable pe- 
cuniary embarrassment among slave-holders, and throughout the 
country. 

This objection is a very serious one. It is that on which 
multitudes chiefly rest in believing that the immediate abolition 
of slavery is entirely impracticable. The other objections no- 
ticed, are perhaps most frequently on the tongue, but this is in 
the heart. The great obstacle to the emancipation of slaves at 
any time, and in any mode, is the difficulty of reconciling it with 
the pecuniary interests of their masters. The system of slavery 
was founded at first, not only in motives of interest, but of self- 
ishness ; and in them it is strongly intrenched. 

If slavery is never abolished till every demand of supreme 
selfishness can be satisfied in its abolition, that event will proba- 
bly be deferred to a remote period, and be attained by a process 
sufficiently gradual to satisfy the most moderate reformers. 
Selfishness demanded the organization of this institution, and 
now demands its continuance. The same principle makes a 
great many other demands, contrary to justice and humanity ; 
but none more so than these. 

A little consideration, however, will show that the pecuniary 
embarrassment to be expected from the immediate abolition of 
slavery, would be fiir less than is sometimes imagined. Slaves 
are not articles of consumption, either as (bod, clothing, or dwell- 
ings. Neither are they an exclusive source whence either of these 
clcisses of useful products are derived. Tiiey constitute only a part 
of the productive capital, from the improvement of which, the food, 
clothuig, and other ai'ticles of human consumption in the slave- 



104 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

holding districts, are derived ; a portion of wealth, which is use- 
ful only as a means of producing other kinds of property adapted 
to supply human wants. 

The slaves are a principal class of agents in the production 
of property. They are also, to some extent, consumers, though 
they are supposed to consume far less than they produce. 

Their emancipation will not remove them from the districts 
in which they reside. It will not destroy their powers of pro- 
duction, considered in relation to the creation of wealth. They 
will have all the capacity for producing articles of utility after 
their emancipation, which they have in a state of slavery. There 
is good reason to believe that their capacities for the production 
of wealth will be greatly increased by emancipation, rather than 
diminished. The only difference between their present condi- 
tion and a state of freedom, so far as the pecuniary interests of 
their masters can be unfavorably affected, is this ; their labor 
can now be obtained by their proprietors for less than the market 
price, its true value ; whereas, if they are liberated, they will 
become entitled to receive for it the price which it will command 
in the market. Slave labor costs the proprietors something now. 
But if emancipation should take place, it would cost them what 
it is worth. The question under discussion then is this : Can 
the slave-holding classes afford to pay a fair price to the laborer 
for his service? Is it impossible for them to take care of them- 
selves and families without robbing the laborer of his just due ? 
For all that will be required of them, after the emancipation of 
their slaves, will be to pay them equitably for their services. 

The abolition of slavery will not destroy any kind of property 
but that which consists in slaves. It will not destroy, but in- 
crease the capacities of producing wealth, which are possessed 
by slaves. If slavery is abolished, the slave-holders will still 
have their farms, plantations, shops, dwelling-houses, implements 
of labor, machinery, &c. They will also have a market well 
supplied with servants, to be obtained on reasonable terms, for 
what then- labor is worth. Multitudes could emancipate their 
slaves, and have enough property left on which to Hve in com- 
fort, and even in affluence. One consequence of emancipation 
would be, an increase of the value of most kinds of property. 
Lands would rise ; various articles of merchandize would meet 
an enlarged and increased demand. And the greater value of 
this property would go far to compensate the slave-holding class 
of the community for their loss by emancipation. In many 



OUGHT SLAVERY TO BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED ? 105 

cases it would compensate them fully. So that the pecuniary- 
loss from emancipation would be partly, and perhaps to a very 
great extent made up, by the rise in the value of real estate 
which would follow that event. A similar result has been recently 
developed in the West Indies. 

The idea that society would not be able to survive the catas- 
trophe of emancipation, on account of the loss of property which 
would be involved in that event, is absurd and ridiculous. Slaves 
are not among the necessaries of life. Neither are slave-holders 
so poor and impotent, and so disqualified for all lucrative pur- 
suits of every kind, that the loss of what they unrighteously hold 
£is property, would involve them in irretrievable ruin, and reduce 
them to inevitable and hopeless distress. 

Much alarm is undoubtedly felt on this ground. The loss of 
property which is anticipated from the abolition of slavery, is 
regarded as a tremendous evil. Dismal forebodings and appall- 
ing fears are indulged, which a sober estimate of the case will 
not justify. The man that is panic-struck, or that is laboring 
under any other enthusiastic excitement, is not the man either 
to estimate danger properly, or to make wise and judicious ar- 
rangements with reference to it. 

But suppose property should be lost ; multitudes in some de- 
gree impoverished ; and some, a few in comparison with the 
great mass of slave-holders, reduced to extreme poverty. What 
then ? Is nothing to be done which involves a loss of property ? 
Might not the country survive such a shock and recover from 
it ? Might not many of those persons most injured, retrieve their 
fortunes, and live in comfort notwithstanding '/ 

What is the loss of property in a good cause ? Christ who 
was rich, for our sakes became poor, that we, through his im- 
poverishment, might be rich. 

Thousands have taken cheerfully the spoiling of their goods 
in the service of God. Thousands have been willing to impov- 
erish themselves in order that they might confer signal benefits 
on their fellow men. Are there not among slave-holders thou- 
sands, and tens of thousands, who would be willing to subordi- 
nate their own pecuniary interests entirely to those of justice 
and humanity? I cannot think so meanly of that class of men, 
as not to suppose there are. If our liberties were invaded, no 
sacrifice of property which might Ix) requisite ibr asserting and 
defending them, would be considered too great to be made for 
that purpose. What is still more valuable than property, life 

10 



106 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

itself, the life of thousands and tens of thousands of patriots, 
would be freely and promptly sacrificed in such a worthy cause. 
If we would expend so much for our own liberties and those of 
our fellow-citizens, shall we begrudge the loss of that property 
which consists in slaves, as far as it is requisite for their imme- 
diate emancipation? Shall their emancipation be indefinitely 
postponed for want of that generous surrender ? Such may be 
the fact. Persons may be unwilling to suffer the loss of pro- 
perty by the emancipation of slaves, and on that ground may 
oppose and prevent their emancipation. But such conduct need 
not, ought not to be. Generosity, benevolence, and justice, 
forbid it. 

When we think of the sacrifice or consumption of property, 
by doing right and by promoting human happiness, we ought to 
remember, that these are the very purposes for which property 
is useful. When property has satisfied rational wants, it has 
answered its legitimate purpose. Such are the wants to be 
satisfied by the abohtion of slavery, and by the restoration of 
men to the possession of themselves. We ought also to remem- 
ber, that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the 
strong, nor riches to men of worldly wisdom. 

Riches are the gift of God. He is able in various ways to 
resume them. If we refuse to impoverish ourselves when called 
to do it in the discharge of our duty, God may impoverish us in 
our sins. Every demand for the surrender of property, which 
is made by the law and providence of God, he is able to enforce, 
by blessing and prospering the obedient, and by cursing and 
rendering unprosperous the disobedient. 

As far as we practice obedience in respect to duties of this 
kind, we may expect a greater degree of prosperity than other- 
wise, in the use of our remaining property ; and as far as we 
refuse to surrender property at the call of God, we may expect 
to have it in some way taken from us. Men are seldom the 
poorer for doing justice ; but often so for committing injustice, 
with a view to enrich themselves to a greater extent than they 
can do by honest means. 

Living under the providence of God, with our fortunes as a 
nation and as individuals in his hand, and entirely at his disposal ; 
no man can know that the slave-holding districts of this country, 
or even the slave-holders, would be the poorer for the immediate 
emancipation of their slaves. It would be easy for God to di- 
minish their prosperity while slavery continues, to such a degree 



OUGHT SLAVERY TO BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED ? 107 

that they will be losers by liolding on to their slaves ; and to in- 
crease it, if slavery should be abolished, to such a degree, that 
they would loose nothing by that event. In our calculations on 
this subject, we ought to remember, that God is the God of the 
oppressed, and that it will not be a new thing, should lie espouse 
their cause, and tread down their oppressors with indignation ; 
or should he bestow unusual benefits on those oppressors made 
penitent, in consequence of their repentance and reformation. 
Besides, in estimating the effect of the immediate abolition of 
slavery on the pecuniary interests of the great mass of slave- 
holders, we ought to consider chiefly their permanent interests ; 
not those of a year, but of a series of years, and even of gener- 
ations to come. Not our temporary, but our permanent inter- 
ests, are the great interests about which we ought to be chiefly 
concerned. Those which are merely temporary, ought, in all 
cases, to be subordinated to those which are })ermanent. 

The object of the accumulation of wealth is future use, not im- 
mediate consumption. A large proportion of the acquisitions of 
the present generation, are designed for that to come, and for still 
more remote posterity. What then would be the elfect of the 
immediate abolition of slavery, on the pecuniary interests of slave- 
holders, and of the present slave-holding communities, consider- 
ed in relation to the next fifty or a hundred years ? If it should 
produce a temporary reduction of their property, and temporary 
embarrassment, would it not also be attended with an ultimate 
and permanent reaction in their favor, which would more than 
compensate them for this temporary injury ? No man can know 
that it would not ; and there are important reasons lor believing 
that it would. As a general rule, honesty is the best policy. 
Though a man may be a gainer by single acts of dishonesty, yet 
the habit of being dishonest, considered in relation to a series of 
years, and to the period of human life, is almost universally un- 
profitable and disastrous. So it may be in regard to slavery. 

In partiular cases, and to a certain extent, a man may be a 
gainer by holding his fellow men in slavery. But like other 
species of dishonesty, this is decidedly unprofitable, considered 
in relation to the whole period of life, and to the whole pecuniary 
interests of society. As a general rule, the slave-holding dis- 
tricts are less wealthy and prosperous, in proportion to the nat- 
ural advantages which they possess for the ac(]uisition of wealth, 
than those which adopt the other and e([uitable modes of servitude. 
The dilTerencc in this respect, in favor of those which arc without 



108 DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE. 

slavery, is manifest and striking ; and ought to be taken into the ^ 
present account. 

If, however, the immediate abolition of slavery should be found 
by experiment too expensive an enterprise to be carried through 
by the slave-holding districts unassisted, a sympathizing world 
would be ready to afford them whatever assistance they should 
need. 

I have now argued in favor of this enterprize on the ground, 
that it would not prove so expensive as is generally feared, 
and that the expense of it would be easily borne by the slave- 
holding communities themselves. Again, on the supposition that 
the expense were ever so great, and the temporary embarrass- 
ment occasioned by this procedure ever so considerable, I have 
still argued, and I hope maintained, that the work ought to be 
done, on the same principle that we would barter both our lives 
and property for our own liberties, and those of our children. 

Lastly, I have placed the cause on a different and broader 
ground, as one that ought to be attempted at every hazard, and 
that will command the benevolent assistance of the civilized 
world to carry it forward to a happy result, rather than that it 
should fail for want of the pecuniary means of effecting it. 

On the whole, it appears that the objections now considered, 
do not at all invalidate the conclusion to which they are opposed, 
and that the position, that slavery ought to be immediately abol- 
ished, receives additional strength i'rom the consideration of these 
objections. 



Divine Redeemer, Thou who desirest truth and honesty in 
the soul, and who art the only source of wisdom, shine forth ; 
and let the writer and every reader of these pages, enjoy the 
blessedness of doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly 
with our God. 



4-1950 



^LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

'lllfliififM 



1 



'' iH/iiliJIil 

011 899 702 5 



1 

I 

i 


i 


i 
ill 


ii 




1 


m 



